Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CROMARTY PETROLEUM ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Cromarty Petroleum Order Confirmation Bill may be presented to the House in the next Session of Parliament with a declaration, signed by the Secretary of State and deposited in the Public Bill Office, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was presented in the present Session:
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Public Bill Office that such a declaration had been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the Second time:
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Gregor MacKenzie.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE

European Community Countries

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is still satisfied with the deficit on Great Britain's trade with other EEC countries; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): So far this year, there has been an increase of 42 per cent. in the value of our exports to other EEC countries and a 28 per cent. increase in imports compared with the corresponding period in 1975. I welcome the resulting improvement in our still large trade deficit with the EEC.

Mr. Skinner: Does it not need to be mentioned that, according to the most recent figures, we are in deficit with other Common Market countries to the tune of £2,300 million and that the amount by which we are supposed to be benefiting from the common agricultural policy and the green pound pales into insignificance compared with that very large deficit? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that now, 30 years after the war, we are in the financial grip of Western Germany and the only answer to the problem is to get out of the Common Market, and do it quickly?

Mr. Dell: I do not agree with my hon. Friend on that. It is true that we have a large deficit with the European Community, but I am sure my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that the deficit has improved slightly so far this year and has improved to an even greater extent in respect of manufacturing products.

Mr. Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that Great Britain has no trade deficit?

Mr. Dell: If I were to follow the right hon. Gentleman's reasoning it would take some time, and perhaps Question Time would be better used in some other way.

Mr. Watkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that under the Treaty of Rome, Articles 104 and 108, we are


entitled to protect our balance of payments? In those circumstances, is it not necessary for us now seriously to consider controlling our imports from the Common Market?

Mr. Dell: As my hon. Friend says, there are such provisions within the Treaty of Rome. On the other hand, my hon. Friend should remember that there are several countries within the Community which also have large balance of payments deficits and high unemployment. For example, I do not know whether my hon. Friend saw details of the French trade deficit for October.

Export Markets

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied with the growth of British exports to those markets in the world where the national economies are now expanding at a relatively rapid rate compared to the international average; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Michael Meacher): Our exports in the three months to October were 11 per cent. higher in volume than a year earlier. The main impetus to growth over this period has come from the recovery in activity in the industrial countries, and our exports have grown rapidly to these countries.

Mr. Forman: Although I welcome that news, will the hon. Gentleman say whether he and his Department have done enough to help British exporters who want to concentrate on the fast-growing economies in the world, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, which are sucking in an increasing quantity of imports and in which British exporters could exploit many good opportunities?

Mr. Meacher: I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that British exporters have been increasing their volume of exports to the OPEC countries faster than have any of our competitors. In the year to mid-1976 our exports to all oil-exporting countries went up by 40 per cent. and to Saudi Arabia by 131 per cent.

Mr. Canavan: As it is now clear that the Shadow Cabinet has been infiltrated by Right-wing extremists, will my hon. Friend reject any suggestions from spokesmen on the Opposition Front

Bench that we should increase trade with some of their friends in Fascist countries such as South Africa? Will he also reject any suggestions that there should be an increase in trade in birches, gallows and other instruments of death and torture such as is proposed by the skinhead of Cathcart?

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend knows that we have a firm embargo on arms to South Africa. I am glad to say that the main thrust of our exports is into other, more salubrious parts of the world.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister say, in clarification, whether it is still the Government's policy to seek to expand further our trade with Eastern European and Communist countries?

Mr. Meacher: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his elevation to the Front Bench. I should like to give him the traditional greeting by saying that I am sure he will have a long time there in which to develop his skills. We shall certainly seek to expand our trade with Eastern European and COMECON countries. With the exception of the USSR, our current trade surplus in those countries is in excess of £100 million.

Financial Institutions (Review)

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects to announce the terms of reference and the membership of the joint Department of Trade and Bank of England body reviewing the role and function of financial institutions in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Dell: Within the next few weeks.

Mr. Renton: Is the real purpose of this body simply to muzzle for the time being demands of the left wing for the nationalisation of the clearing banks? If the body is to serve a useful purpose, will the Secretary of State ensure that those serving on it are drawn not just from the kitchen cabinet cronies of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) but from people who have a lifetime of interest in the matter on which the body is reporting?

Mr. Dell: I suspect from the nature of the supplementary question that the hon. Gentleman is confused. We are not talking about the committee to be established under my right hon. Friend the Member


for Huyton. We are talking about a joint review body established between the Bank of England and my Department to improve supervision of the securities market. That is a valuable purpose which I am sure the body will effectively carry out.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that the decision to establish this body does not pre-empt any future decision or mean that the Government are opposed to the establishment of an independent body to supervise the securities market—a body which would be answerable to the House through Ministers? Will he tell the House what the relationship between this body and the Take-Over Panel will be?

Mr. Dell: The Take-Over Panel will no doubt consult this body when matters relating to it and matters affecting the securities market arise. It was made clear when the existence of this body was announced that it would not pre-empt the considerations of the committee of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton. Nor does it pre-empt any decision that a Government might take or that that committee might recommend regarding a different way of supervising the securities market. Nothing is pre-empted here, but in the meantime it seemed to the Governor of the Bank of England and myself that a body such as this one should be set up because in the short term, too, there is a valuable job to be done and it might be that my right hon. Friend's committee would be persuaded that a body of this sort—perhaps developed in some way—was itself sufficient for the purpose.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will give an assurance that the EEC common agricultural policy will be included in the multilateral trade negotiations and that the principles and mechanisms of the common agricultural policy are negotiable.

Mr. Meacher: Agricultural trade is included in the negotiations, and the common agricultural policy will be operated to take account of whatever agreements are reached in the negotiations.

Mr. Neubert: Does the Minister agree that one of the advantages of the CAP and membership of the EEC should be easier access to food supplies throughout the Community? If so, what action is he taking to protect the trade in agricultural products between France and Great Britain, and what is he doing about the blacking by Southampton dockers of the proposed new service operated by Brittany Ferries between Portsmouth and St. Malo, in which the Portsmouth ratepayers have a £1 million stake?

Mr. Meacher: I think that the connection between unilateral trade negotiations and the Portsmouth ratepayer is tenuous to the point of invisibility. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to table a specific Question on that highly technical matter, I will see that he receives an answer.

Mr. Madden: How many foodstuffs such as butter are nearly twice as dear for the British housewife if they originate from the Common Market as would be the case if they were available to us on the world market? What is my hon. Friend's Department doing to end the ramshackle policy of the CAP which was designed to benefit French farmers and which is working against the interests of British housewives and inevitably increasing the cost of all foodstuffs?

Mr. Meacher: The question of higher butter prices as a result of the CAP depends upon the relationship between EEC prices and world prices, which fluctuate. I shall be glad to give my hon. Friend the latest figures. On the question of the multilateral trade negotiations, I would certainly hope that cheaper food imports will be one of the results. I envisage that there will be discussion of tariff reductions, of international commodity agreements and of a co-ordination of trading agreements in key products such as milk, butter and meat. I hope that the consequence will be some reduction in the cost of food imports.

Inflation Accounting

Mr. Parkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what reports and representations he has received regarding the introduction of inflation accounting; who will ultimately be responsible for the treatment of net monetary assets; and on


what date he now expects inflation accounting to be introduced.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): On the first point, my officials have kept closely in touch with the work of the Inflation Accounting Steering Group in preparing the exposure draft on current cost accounting. This will be published on 1st December, and I cannot anticipate its contents on the last two points mentioned by the hon. Member.

Mr. Parkinson: Will the Minister confirm that accounts prepared on an inflation accounting basis would show that very few British companies are making profits or have made profits in recent years and would underline still further the rather foolish nature of the criticism of British industry for its failure to invest?

Mr. Davis: Before I answer the hon. Gentleman's question, may I congratulate him on his elevation to the Front Bench and express the hope that he will continue to support the Government and oppose his party as effectively as he did on the recent companies legislation? The hon. Gentleman is really asking me to anticipate not only the report but the discussion of the matter of current cost accounting. It would be wrong for me to do that.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does my hon. Friend accept that the implications of this are very great for the trade union movement? Has he had any discussions with the Trades Union Congress about the implementation of these recommendations?

Mr. Davis: I have had no discussions with the TUC because at this stage we are concerned with the report of the steering group and I do not know whether the TUC has itself communicated with the steering group. I very much hope that it has done so.

European Community (Multilateral Negotiations)

Mr. William Shelton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what proposals Her Majesty's Government have made to the EEC to expedite the multilateral trade negotiations.

Mr. Meacher: Her Majesty's Government have made clear in various circles

that we look for a rapid conclusion of the multilateral trade negotiations.

Mr. Shelton: Is not the Minister being too complacent? Should he not urge the Commission to speed the negotiations as quickly as possible, since to date little agreement has been reached, the already postponed target date for tariff cuts is now only a year away, and the American authority to negotiate under the Trade Act 1975 lapses in two or three years' time?

Mr. Meacher: We are anxious to see an early conclusion to the MTNs and my right hon. Friend will take initiatives as may be appropriate to secure this end. We have the approach of the new American Administration and we also will be having changes in personnel in the Commission of the European Communities. The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the early conclusion of powers under the United States Trade Act which end at the end of 1978. That is one reason for concluding negotiations at the latest by the early part of 1978 to ensure that Congress has time to take the necessary action.

Tourism

Mr. Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied that the views of the private sector interests are adequately represented in the formation of policies affecting tourism.

Mr. Meacher: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hicks: Does not the Minister agree that the private sector activities and facilities still form the majority part of the tourist industry? Will he consider the possibility of increasing regular but informal discussion meetings chaired by himself at which all interested groups can be represented?

Mr. Meacher: I appreciate the crucial importance of the private sector in the promotion of tourism and the carrying out of projects. The heart of consultation lies in regular daily contact between the Department's officials and Ministers and the private sector about specific projects that take place. That already takes place. I am ready to discuss the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about specific discussions if I receive representations from the appropriate bodies.

Mr. Costain: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an answer I received recently showing that unemployment had risen from 2 per cent. to 8 per cent. in Folkestone and Hythe, a constituency which has not a hope of getting any industry because of the priority given to development and other areas? Will the hon. Gentleman put on his thinking cap and consider ways of giving similar priority to tourism in these areas, because that is our only hope of getting unemployment down?

Mr. Meacher: Other forms of selective assistance are available under the Industry Acts 1972 and 1975 for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry is responsible, and the hon. Gentleman can make his representations in that quarter.
As regards changing the guidelines which were set down in November 1974 with regard to the pursuit of tourism, we need an opportunity to see whether they are working effectively. Given the limitation on funds, if we were to make an extension to certain South Coast resorts, for example, the thin spread of assistance would be likely to weaken the whole effect of the exercise.

Mr. Adley: Is the Minister aware that the satisfaction expressed in his initial answer was not shared by those members of the Association of Wessex Guides to whom I was making my presidential address on Saturday afternoon? Is he aware that, on the whole, those in the tourist industry believe that successive Governments have not taken the tourist industry sufficiently seriously? Will he pay particular attention to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks)?

Mr. Meacher: I have said that I shall respond as positively as I can to representations of that kind. The Government do not understate the importance of the tourist industry, because the industry's export earnings in the current year are likely to be about £1½ billion.

Aircraft Noise

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a further statement relating to endeavours to reduce aircraft noise with particular reference to flights passing over the London borough of Ealing.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Our continued application of the existing noise abatement measures at Heathrow, plus the steps being taken to ensure progressive reduction of aircraft noise at source, will, I hope, be of benefit to Ealing as well as to other places near airports.

Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that, notwithstanding my correspondence with him, there has been no abatement of noise over the London borough of Ealing? It is causing grave concern and is having a deleterious effect on the lives of many people. What steps are to be taken in a sincere and determined endeavour to reduce the noise and abate this menace?

Mr. Davis: It would not be right for me to hold out any hope of dramatic action in the short term, although the prospect is more hopeful for the long term. I recognise my hon. Friend's concern about his constituents. I am equally anxious about the situation. The noise in the summer months and early autumn was higher due to the increased number of easterly take-offs and landings required because of the wind conditions. I hope that the recent improvement in noise levels will continue. We are examining with the Civil Aviation Authority factors that will reduce easterly take-offs and landings, but I must always be concerned with the question of safety and the environmental benefit.

Mr. Jessel: Has the Minister been notified of the decision by the French Government to bring in, from April 1977, a differential airport charge so that quiet aircraft are required to pay less than noisy aircraft? Can we introduce a similar scheme?

Mr. Davis: We should seek an international harmonised scheme to deal with the matter rather than individual Governments going their own ways. We must have regard to our own British aviation interest and balance that, as we always try to do, against the environmental interests with which the hon. Member is so rightly concerned.

Mr. Buchan: Apart from dealing with aircraft noise through the aircraft themselves, is not my hon. Friend aware that many thousands of people in my constituency, for example, remain perplexed at the criteria applied when giving


Government grants? Is he aware that only between 200 and 500 people in my area outside Glasgow have received grants? Should not this matter be considered urgently?

Mr. Davis: I do not think that there are any great difficulties about the criteria, but there are always anomalies in looking at criteria. I shall certainly examine any specific case to which my hon. Friend draws my attention.

Mrs. Bain: What attention, if any, is being paid to the procedures adopted at Zurich and New York Kennedy Airports, where local residents are better looked after than they are, for instance, at Abbotsinch and Ealing?

Mr. Davis: If the hon. Lady were to ask the residents near those airports, I am not sure that they would give her the answer that she expects.

Japan

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what further representations he has made to the Japanese Government about the imbalance between Japanese imports to Great Britain and British exports to Japan.

Mr. Sims: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the state of trade between the United Kingdom and Japan in the light of the recent visit to this country by a Japanese delegation to discuss trade.

Mr. Dell: In recent discussions with the Keidanren delegation, we made it clear that the level of our visible trade deficit with Japan is unacceptable. Similar views were expressed by the other EEC countries which the Keidanren visited. I understand that these views are now being considered urgently in Japan and I hope for an early response. The European Council will be discussing these matters at its next meeting.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he is not looking to the EEC to carry out the bulk of this negotiation? Does he agree that the imbalance of visible trade is greater between this country and Japan than it is between any other Western European country and Japan?

Mr. Dell: For its common commercial policy, the European Community has a definite interest in this matter. It strengthens our position to be associated with it in this discussion. It is true that we have a serious deficit with Japan and that it has increased, but other member countries have large deficits with Japan which are also increasing and they are as concerned as we are about the situation.

Mr. Sims: Is it not true that the expansion of exports to Japan depends not only on the wording of Japan's regulations but on the spirit in which they are deployed? Will he use his good offices to persuade the Japanese authorities that it is in their interests as well as ours to adopt a less rigid approach and a more co-operative implementation of their regulations?

Mr. Dell: I have much sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said. We have made it clear that there must be a reduction in this deficit and that it is better if that reduction takes place primarily through an increase in Japanese imports.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what percentage of imports from Japan is attributable to the Joseph Lucas Company, which buys all its car lighting equipment from Japan when we have 18 units capable of supplying them in Britain? There is one in my constituency.

Mr. Dell: I cannot give my hon. Friend that figure without notice.

Mr. Powell: Will the Secretary of State make it clear that the trading accounts which are referred to in Questions such as this are the trading accounts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Dell: The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, quite right. I am sorry that I misunderstood his earlier question.

Employee Participation

Mr. John Page: asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he now expects to publish the report of the Bullock Committee on worker participation.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I expect to receive the committee's report before the end of the year, and it will be published as soon as possible.

Mr. Page: In the light of the differences of view already expressed by a number of industrialists, trade union leaders and even, I understand, members of the committee, will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend to ensure that nothing about the implementation of the Bullock Committee is put in the Gracious Speech, so that there can be proper discussion before legislation is prepared?

Mr. Davis: I cannot anticipate what is to appear in the Gracious Speech. I regret the orchestrated campaign by the Right-wing Press to undermine the Bullock proposals before they have been published. That is a narrow, misguided and defeatist view which flies in the face of the improvements that are needed in worker-management relationships.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable pressure from all sides of industry, including management, for an advance towards industrial democracy in both the public and private sectors?

Mr. Davis: That is a sensible approach.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware that his Government are not good judges of what is good for industry? Does he not agree that there is a world of difference between employee participation and trade union participation? Will he give a clear assurance that the Government will not support, or be pressurised into supporting, any plans which would involve trade unions appointing to company boards personnel who are not employees of those companies?

Mr. Davis: The hon. Member's judgment is not impeccable. He had his own views on the Common Market, from which at one time I did not dissent. He will have to contain his impatience a little concerning the contents of the Bullock Report.

Low-Cost Imports

Mr. Jopling: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will take antidumping action against imports of goods when it can be shown the landed cost of the finished article in the United Kingdom is less than the cost at which British producers can buy the raw materials required to make them.

Mr. Meacher: No, Sir. While the relationship of these costs raises a presumption of dumping, it is not evidence which would satisfy the requirements of our legislation and the GATT Code, which are based on the relationship of export and domestic prices in the country of origin.

Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to the incorrect figure in what I said on 18th October about shoe imports from COMECON countries. How can the Government possibly justify a policy which is leading to factory closures and redundancies in the shoe industry caused entirely by shoes coming in from abroad at a price below the cost of the materials in this country?

Mr. Meacher: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman now recognises that the figure he gave in his earlier question was wildly wrong. The figure he quoted was only just over one-third of the correct figure. We have taken action with regard to shoes from Czechoslovakia, Poland and Romania. Men's shoes are retaining their level below the 1974 level of trade, and women's and children's shoes below the 1975 level. That is a substantial advance. We cannot take action in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests, because many foreign producers may well have access to cheaper indigenous raw materials, cheaper labour, cheaper hydroelectric power or whatever else than is available to United Kingdom manufacturers.

Mrs. Castle: Is it not extraordinarily difficult to obtain evidence of internal pricing in countries such as Japan, as the European bearings industry found in preparing its recent anti-dumping case, with which it has successfully impressed the Commission? Is not the real answer for the Government and the Commission to get much tougher generally over imports from Japan and other low-cost countries?

Mr. Meacher: My right hon. Friend has a later Question on the Order Paper about imports of tapered roller bearings and ball bearings. She is right to say that there were difficulties in obtaining up-to-date information from Japan on price relativities and discounts, but these have been obtained. As for taking firmer action against Japan, Ministers not only in Britain but in other countries in the


West expressed their very strong concern during the recent visit of the Keidanren delegation to Britain and elsewhere in Europe about Japan's exporting policy and the need substantially to increase its purchases from the West. We are looking for urgent action on that front in the near future.

Mr. Shersby: Will the Minister answer "Yes" or "No" to the question whether he has taken action to prevent the importation into this country of shoes at less than the cost at which manufacturers in this country can produce them? In particular, will he deal with the question of sandals?

Mr. Meacher: I have already answered that question, but obviously the hon. Gentleman was not listening. I made clear that that was not a basis for operating under the 1969 Act. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read the newspapers, where he will see that we have accepted for full investigation the question of men's leather sandals from Czechoslovakia.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Has my hon. Friend had recent evidence of the disastrous amount of imports of ready-made clothing, resulting in the closure of factories in the North-East of England as well as elsewhere? Is he prepared to take fresh action in that regard?

Mr. Meacher: The case put to us by the Clothing Manufacturers' Federation was accepted for full investigation in September. I hope that we shall be able to conclude the investigation within a month or two.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is the Minister aware that if something is not done soon to prevent the flood of low-cost imports of shoes and textiles there will be neither a shoe factory nor a textile factory left in this country within 10 years? Will he therefore seek to renegotiate the burden of proof, so that those seeking to bring in low-cost materials must prove that they are not dumped, rather than that we should have to take up to a year to prove that they are?

Mr. Meacher: This Government have taken more action to obtain price and volume undertakings, and more action on the anti-dumping front, than any pre-

vious Government, particularly in respect of textiles and footwear. Through the EEC we have negotiated no fewer than 13 bilateral restraint agreements with all the low-cost producers of textiles. As for the onus of proof being put on importers, it was announced in the Press on Friday—but the hon. Lady obviously missed the announcement—that we are considering what further information can be obtained and made available about the domestic price in the country of origin of goods that are being shipped to this country. We are examining this question very carefully with Customs and Excise. I hope that we shall be able to take action very soon.

Companies (Inspection of Books)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Trade how many inquiries his Department is conducting currently under Section 109 of the Companies Act 1967.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Forty-three.

Mr. Canavan: If my hon. Friend grants my request for an investigation into the affairs of Scottish and Universal Investments Ltd., will he try to find out exactly what happened to the £4 million discrepancy in its balance sheets? In particular, will he try to find out whether any of that money went directly or indirectly to any political party, as the company chairman, Sir Hugh Fraser, who was also involved in some of the suspicious share dealings, is a well-known financial supporter of the Scottish National Party, which in my constituency has previously been found guilty of cooking the books in its election returns?

Mr. Davis: It is not the Department's practice to disclose when and the manner in which it carries out confidential investigations.

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to follow recent custom and raise his point of order at the end of Question Time?

Later—

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order arising out of Question No. 13.
The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), in a supplementary question, implied that a citizen outside this House, Sir Hugh Fraser, had made large-scale donations to a political party, which he did not disclose in the accounts of his company. I am no supporter of the Scottish National Party to which Sir Hugh is supposed to have made these donations, but I believe that it would be quite wrong for an hon. Member to make allegations of this sort, suggesting that a citizen has broken the law, unless he can produce evidence to substantiate it. I would have thought that you would ask the hon. Member either to withdraw his allegations or to repeat them outside of this House so that the aggrieved citizen can take the necessary legal action. I hope that you will consider that it is a serious breach of the privileges of the House for the hon. Member to be able to make allegations of this sort and get away with them.

Mr. Canavan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I merely asked the Minister to inquire into this and find out exactly what the truth is so that we may know where this £4 million went. The other point I made in my supplementary question—and it is well known in Scotland—was that Sir Hugh Fraser gives financial assistance to the Scottish National Party. That is common knowledge and I shall repeat it outside of this House.

Mr. Speaker: When an hon. Member refers to people outside of this House he takes upon himself the responsibility for so doing. That is a long-established custom.

Import Controls

Mr. Anthony Grant: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what estimate he has made of the effect which those advocating import controls have had in accelerating imports and adversely affecting recent balance of payments trade figures.

Mr. Dell: I have made no estimate.

Mr. Grant: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's resistance to generalised import controls and to the lunacy advocated by some members of his party is very much to be com-

mended? Does he realise, however, that a number of industrialists perhaps take the absurd nonsense talked by the Labour Party's National Executive rather more seriously than he does and have been stocking up in anticipation of some decisions in this respect? Will he confirm that it is his view that generalised import controls are no solution to our problems?

Mr. Dell: The Government's position on the matter has repeatedly been made clear. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear in his Budget Statement on 6th April. That is the Government's position. There may have been forestalling. If there has, it is very difficult to be absolutely certain of its extent.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I have heard nobody talking about a siege economy or generalised import controls, but there has been a strong representation to the Government by the TUC and CBI jointly that we should have selective import controls. Will my right hon. Friend look at the electronics industry, where something needs to be done very quickly? The Government have received representations from that industry that Japanese imports have killed off certain manufacturing industries in this country and that further industries will suffer unless the Government act quickly.

Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend has a later Question on the Order Paper about precisely this point. The paper which I submitted to NEDC on 2nd October was published in a recent edition of Trade and Industry. If my hon. Friend studies it, he will find that we have many selective controls on imports. As for consumer electronics, he will no doubt have noticed that the British industry has recently been in consultation with the Japanese industry and has come to an understanding with it about imports next year which, I understand, it found satisfactory.

Diesel Trains (Import)

Mr. Madden: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether licences have been sought for the import of heavy freight diesel trains—Class 56—manufactured under licence in Romania; and what is the total value of the orders concerned.

Mr. Meacher: The import of heavy freight diesel trains is not subject to individual licensing. I understand that the value of the locomotives assembled in Romania, which were the subject of recent reports in the Press, was £8·4 million, of which the import content was about 15 per cent.—namely, £1·2 million.

Mr. Madden: Will my hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he will exert maximum pressure on British Rail to ensure that its requirements for equipment are met as far as possible from domestic British sources, as procurement from overseas will undoubtedly have an effect on both British Rail employees and employees in British manufacturing industry?

Mr. Meacher: The purchasing policy of British Rail is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I shall see that my hon. Friend's representations are conveyed to him. I understand that British Rail sought the purchase of 60 locomotives of a type that it wanted urgently delivered mainly because of a higher forecast of freight traffic, especially in coal. Only Brush, in conjunction with a Romanian company, was able to supply within the required delivery deadlines. The order was deliberately split fifty-fifty to safeguard jobs so far as possible within Britain.

Mr. Burden: Does the Minister agree that the best way of ensuring that the nationalised industries, including the railways, place more orders with British firms is to allow them to plan well into the future and to submit them to far less interference and control by Government Departments?

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman might like to know that domestic purchasing by the public sector within Britain is at a much higher level than similar purchasing by the private sector.

Mr. Bagier: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be far better if the railway workshops and those who are producing for the home market were given far more scope in tendering for the home market and far more scope in going for overseas orders?

Mr. Meacher: I appreciate the force of my hon. Friend's point, but I must tell

him that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Special Steels (United States Import Restrictions)

Mr. Stan Crowther: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what protest he has made against the action of the United States Government in unilaterally imposing restrictions on the import of certain special steels from the United Kingdom and other EEC countries.

Mr. Meacher: Most recently in my right hon. Friend's speech in New York on 15th November. The EEC has protested and fully reserved our GATT Article XIX rights.

Mr. Crowther: Does my hon. Friend accept that those engaged in the special steels industry will warmly welcome the fact that protests have been made and will strongly support what I hope will be continuing protests as long as this imposition continues? Does he agree that there is a certain tragic irony in the fact that an important section of British industry is being attacked in this way by the United States Government at the same time as our Government are still resolutely refusing to consider taking similar measures for the protection of British industry?

Mr. Meacher: I am well aware of the acute concern that is felt in the special steels industry over American action. We have ensured that the American Government are in no doubt about our view that the injury to American domestic industry is caused by the economic depression and not by increased imports. I hope that the American Administration, as a result of the strong representations that have been made through the EEC, will soon decide to remove or modify restrictions at an early date. As for protection for the British special steels industry, my hon. Friend will know that we have secured from Japan, which is the main import problem for the United Kingdom, both price and volume undertakings that will reduce the level of imports of special steels from Japan next year below the level prevailing during this year.

Mr. Tim Renton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as a result of the "grandfather" clause in American


legislation, especially in the American trade legislation of 1974, it is far easier for the United States to take quick, unilateral protectionist action than it is for the British Government to do so? Will the Government be discussing this matter with the United States at Geneva during the current round of multilateral trade negotiations?

Mr. Meacher: The answer is certainly "Yes". On 15th November my right hon. Friend made special reference to this fact. It is true that the "grandfather" clause gives America special privileges. They are wearing a little thin after such a long time, but they will be on the agenda for the MTNs.

Air Fares

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the progress being made in the negotiations aimed at reducing the scale of air fares in Europe.

Mr. Clinton Davis: No intergovernmental negotiations are taking place. However, the Civil Aviation Authority, which has responsibility for these matters in the United Kingdom, has recently announced its intention of conducting a public consultation early next year on the level of normal economy fares between this country and the rest of Europe. The United Kingdom is also participating in a study of intra-European air fares in general which is being conducted by the European Civil Aviation Conference.

Mr. McCrindle: Although I welcome the CAA's initiative, may I ask whether the Minister agrees that the difficulty is likely to be that any agreement that may be reached as a result of these investigations will have to be agreed with all the European operators? In these circumstances, will the Government give any consideration to the possibility of bilateral agreement between this country and selected operators in Europe?

Mr. Davis: I think we must seek overall agreement, if that is reasonably possible, within a reasonable time scale. We shall give consideration to the hon. Gentleman's point if it is clear beyond any doubt that no such agreement will be forthcoming.

Mr. Freud: As no one really believes that the price of air fares will come down, will the hon. Gentleman at least do something about making London Airport slightly less inefficient than it now is? In world aviation there is no question that one waits longer for luggage in London than anywhere else and finds it harder to meet anyone than anywhere else and harder to park than anywhere else.

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman may realise when he considers these matters a little more profoundly that I am not responsible for the operation of Heathrow Airport. I suggest that he communicates not with the CAA but with the British Airports Authority. The hon. Gentleman has a lot to learn.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to take action to secure fairer charges by British Airways within the United Kingdom, the cost per mile from Stornoway, in my constituency, to Glasgow being double the cost from Glasgow to London?

Mr. Davis: That is a matter essentially to be determined between the CAA and the British Airports Authority.

USSR (Credits)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what amount of the £950 million credit offered to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has been taken up at the latest available date.

Mr. Meacher: The total value of contracts placed under the agreement to date is approximately £42 million. Discussions are continuing on further substantial contracts between United Kingdom exporters and buyers in the USSR.

Mr. Blaker: Is it not an extraordinary situation when we are offering to lend money for the building of factories in Russia at rates of interest much lower than those which have to be paid by our own industry if it is building factories in Britain, all this being done at a cost to the British taxpayer that the Government refuse to disclose?

Mr. Meacher: If exporters are to get a proper share of this important and expanding market, they have to offer credit and interest rates on a competitive


basis. The conditions of the framework for our trade with the USSR were settled not by us but by our competitors. The hon. Gentleman will have to make up his mind whether he is saying to British industry—it will not agree with him—that he does not wish to see any trade with the USSR. As regards domestic industry, it is the case that if money has to be borrowed it has to be at the going interest rate. However, there are wide-ranging grants to assist industry to get money for desired investment at cheaper rates.

Mr. Greville Janner: What is the current state of the balance of trade between Britain and the USSR?

Mr. Meacher: We are in substantial deficit.

Mr. Neubert: How much of the trade between the United Kingdom and the USSR is carried in British ships? What progress is the Department making on its own, or in concert with other European countries, to combat the urgent threat that is posed by cut-price Soviet shipping?

Mr. Meacher: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figures without notice, but I shall write to him on this matter.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the total amount of credits outstanding to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under the auspices of ECGD.

Mr. Meacher: The total amount of credit outstanding is not confined to contracts placed under the £950 million credit agreement. However, for commercial reasons, it has been the practice of successive Administrations not to disclose figures of ECGD's cover in respect of individual markets.

Mr. Ridley: Since the Government seem determined to conceal this figure, may I tell the Minister that my estimate is that it has now reached £1,200 million? Why do the Government insist on investing more in Russian industry than they do in British industry when they obtain no dividends from Soviet investment but only low-priced imports?

Mr. Meacher: We are in no way investing specially in the Soviet market.

We are merely ensuring that British exporters who wish to take advantage of the substantially expanding Soviet market should be able to use the facilities available to them in that market as well as in other markets on a competitive basis.

Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are many manufacturers who welcome the Government's endeavours because they will enable them to increase their trade with the Soviet Union, which is a good thing for our industry? Is he not aware that the anger among Conservatives is that such sensible and intelligent behaviour is in direct contrast to the attitude of the Opposition, and especially of the Leader of the Opposition, who wishes to abolish any talk-in with the Soviet Union, wants to see the end of detente and wishes to get down to having a first-class war?

Mr. Meacher: I am well aware of the political myopia of the Opposition, particularly their Leader, with regard to the Soviet Union.

United States of America

Mr. John H. Osborn: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what initiatives he will now take with the new Administration of the United States of America to improve trade between the United States of America and Great Britain and provide better opportunities for British exporters.

Mr. Dell: I made a speech in New York a week ago, during which I indicated some areas in which our trading relationships might be improved. I have put copies in the Library of the House.

Mr. Osborn: I was hoping for a more general report. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether future negotiations will be bilateral or within the context of the EEC which is making purchases? There are obstacles, including tariffs and quotas, and in particular quota restrictions on steel. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the latest position?

Mr. Dell: We have just discussed the subject of steel, and as a Community we have made strong representations on the subject of special steels. I referred to this matter in a recent speech and on other occasions. We have discussed this


matter recently in bilateral talks with the United States Government, and we shall also be discussing these matters in the context of the multilateral trade negotiations.

Mr. Powell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that economic opportunities in the United States are of importance to all parts of the United Kingdom, not only to Great Britain?

Mr. Dell: I do indeed.

Mr. Loyden: What progress, if any, has been made towards reaching international agreement on standards for motor cars, bearing in mind recent events in the United States which may well be to the detriment of the British car industry?

Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend will know that this subject arises in a number of parts of the world. We shall take up with the United States Government, and indeed with any other Government, the standards that tend to operate as non-tariff barriers against our exports.

Mr. Adley: As President-elect Carter has shown himself such a keen exponent of pursuing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, will the Secretary of State find out whether Mr. Carter has read the Coleman Report on Concorde, and, if he has not, will he invite him to do so? Will he also ask Mr. Carter whether his future pronouncements on Concorde will be based on fact rather than fancy and prejudice?

Mr. Dell: I am sure that the President-elect of the United States will take seriously the evidence at Dulles Airport, Washington, in regard to arrivals and departures of Concorde which are acceptable on environmental grounds.

Ball Bearings

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what steps he is taking to support the representations made to the Commission of the EEC in May by the whole of the bearing industry in the EEC for protective measures to be taken against low-priced imports from Japan and the COMECON countries; and if he will ascertain when the Commission's response is likely to be published.

Mr. Meacher: Following an application for Community anti-dumping action against imports of roller bearings from Japan by the Committee of the European Bearing Manufacturers Association, the case has now been accepted for full investigation at Community level.

Mrs. Castle: In my Question I was referring not to anti-dumping but to the massive memorandum submitted by the European bearings industry to the Commission in May, which clearly shows that the Japanese share of the bearings market in Europe and the United States has been rising alarmingly in the past few years as a result of a deliberate price-cutting policy by Japanese industry. Will Her Majesty's Government make clear to Japanese industry that, unless it increases the price of its exports and voluntarily controls their volume, Her Majesty's Government will have no alternative but to impose import controls?

Mr. Meacher: The Government have made it clear that they are ready to consider a policy of selective import controls, but in this case it was British industry which chose the anti-dumping route. Having combined with the European Bearing Manufacturers Association, the British Government are prevented, now that we are part of the EEC, from taking action under Article 26 of the EEC antidumping regulations in terms of independent national action. We shall support the British industry in its representations, and as members of the EEC anti-dumping committee we shall consider the evidence obtained and the remedies to be applied.

Mr. Michael Morris: Will the Minister reconsider what the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said in her supplementary question? Is it not a fact that all the evidence was supplied to the Department early in 1976 and that what happened was that because the Department sat on the matter it went to the Commission? Is not the point at issue the price of the dumped imports rather than quota controls? Unless action is taken, are not the prospects for our industry severe?

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the problem of dumped prices, which is the precise subject now being investigated at Community level. There were difficulties in regard to material


injury criteria and in obtaining the support of the other major bearing manufacturers on the original application. Furthermore, there was a problem in obtaining the updated price relativities and discounts then ruling in Japan. That information took a couple of months to obtain, and by the time that evidence came forward application was being made at Community level.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware of the general dissatisfaction in the House about his answers on dumping questions concerning textiles, footwear and now ball bearings? When is a decision likely to be taken on anti-dumping action against the importation of ball bearings?

Mr. Meacher: I hope that the case will be quickly pursued and a conclusion reached at an early stage. We shall do all in our power to ensure that that happens. A total of 22 investigations has been pursued by the EEC since 1970. Aside from four which are now being investigated, of the remaining 18 some 15 secured satisfactory price undertakings.

Civil Aviation (Private Landing Facilities)

Mr. Shersby: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what discussions have taken place between his Department and the Civil Aviation Authority with regard to future landing facilities for private aircraft at airports in the London area.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I am awaiting the advice of the Civil Aviation Authority and the Standing Conference on London and South-East Regional Planning on aerodrome facilities for general aviation in South-East England, following consultations which they are now undertaking with all those concerned.

Mr. Shersby: What consideration has been given to the continuing use of Gatwick Airport by private aircraft, and has the alternative of Northolt Airport been considered?

Mr. Davis: The question of Gatwick has been considered by the British Airports Authority, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The Authority published a policy statement following consultations on the subject of Heathrow and Gatwick. As for the general policy on whether Northolt or anywhere else may he used

to the greater advantage of general aviation, the hon. Gentleman must await the results of consultations now taking place and also the national airports strategy which is being undertaken by the Government.

Mr. Emery: Does not the Minister realise that if we go on waiting and waiting private flying, particularly commercial private flying associated with the business of taxi transportation and the like, will suffer severely? Does he accept that this area of transportation is in a much worse position in London than in most other industrial capitals, and will the Government do something about the situation quickly?

Mr. Davis: The question of general aviation is complementary to the development of a national airports strategy. The hon. Gentleman's remarks were directed more broadly to take in the consultations on a national airports strategy. If, however, he is arguing that we should not engage in consultations but instead should embark on the policies pursued by the Conservative Government, the House will recognise that that would be utter folly.

Mr. Ford: In connection with the national airports strategy, may I ask my hon. Friend, when he is asked to comment on the application for an extension of the runway at Leeds-Bradford Airport, to cause his Department to give the matter immediate and urgent attention?

Mr. Davis: That issue does not arise out of this Question. My hon. Friend should make representations concerning this matter to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment and myself.

OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT 1911

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement on the Government's intentions on the reform of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. This section, which makes it a criminal offence to disclose official information without authority, has for some time been regarded as too broad in its scope. It has been described as a "catch all" and there has been uncertainty about its interpretation and enforcement.
The Government have concluded that this section should be replaced by an Official Information Act on the broad lines recommended by the Franks Committee. The Committee, whose membership included representatives of Parliament—including myself-and the media, and which presented a unanimous report, recommended that the sanctions of the criminal law should be strictly limited in their application. It is, of course, with the criminal law that we are here concerned and not the practices and rules about disclosure of information in the public service. The normal sanctions of the rules of conduct against disclosures of official information will continue to apply.
The Franks Committee recommended that the criminal law should apply to disclosure of information relating to foreign affairs, defence and internal security, and currency and the reserves when that information is classified "Secret" or above or, in the case of certain defence information, classified as "Defence—Confidential", and also to the disclosure of Cabinet documents, confidences of the citizen and certain information in the field of law and order, such as information that would facilitate crime. Information in these three last categories was to be protected regardless of any security classification.
The Government accept the Committee's general approach to the problem, but in considering the categories of information that ought to be protected by the criminal law we think it right to draw a clearer distinction between home and economic policy on the one hand and security and intelligence, defence and international relations on the other. The unauthorised disclosure of any official information is wrong because it is unauthorised. But in the domestic area it will generally result in embarrassment to the Government of the day and not in any serious damage to the national interest. In the fields of security and intelligence, defence and international relations on the other hand, such damage may well result.
In the economic sphere the Government have reached the conclusion that a criminal sanction is not justified. It is relevant that the Franks Report was prepared at a time of fixed exchange rates. In any case it would not, in the Govern-

ment's view, be appropriate to distinguish between currency and the reserves and, for example, domestic interest rates and monetary and fiscal policies. Faced with a realistic choice between applying criminal sanctions to a wider economic category and the exclusion of economic information from their ambit, it seems right to us that the criminal offence should not extend to economic information.
The Government also propose to depart from the Franks recommendation that there should be a criminal sanction for the disclosure of Cabinet and Cabinet Committee documents, irrespective of their content and security classification. The Committee rested the case for inclusion of this category on the need to safeguard the collective responsibility of the Cabinet.
The doctrine of collective responsibility is fundamental to our system of government and the Government totally accept that the documents of the Cabinet and its Committees deserve special protection. They do not, however, consider that the protection should consist of applying criminal sanctions to the disclosure of documents irrespective of their content and classification. The bulk of Cabinet and Cabinet Committee documents deal with domestic affairs. The protection of these documents is a matter basically of trust and good sense among colleagues. It is also a matter of ensuring that the principles and special procedures for distributing and handling Cabinet documents are properly observed and improved where necessary. In that connection the report of Lord Houghton's Committee on Cabinet document security will be published shortly and the Government's conclusions on it made known at the same time.
The Government have, therefore, concluded that Cabinet and Cabinet Committee documents should be protected by criminal sanctions only when, by their content and security classification, they fall into one of the other categories so protected.
The Government accept the need to protect by criminal sanctions the Franks Committee's proposed categories of confidences of the citizen and certain law and order information, as well as that of disclosure for gain, to which the report of the Royal Commission on Standards


of Conduct in Public Life is relevant. These depend upon special considerations for which we believe that the Committee has made a case.
In the areas of security and intelligence, defence and international relations, the Government have concluded that some rearrangement and extension of the Franks categories is required. Information relating to security and intelligence matters is deserving of the highest protection whether or not it is classified. The Government propose, therefore, that this should form a separate category.
In defence, the Franks Committee recommended that confidential information relating to military weapons and equipment should be given the special marking of "Defence—Confidential" and should be protected by criminal sanctions. The Government have concluded that confidential information of a sensitive and potentially damaging kind goes rather wider than this in both the defence and international fields. It extends to certain areas of defence policy and strategy and of international relations where unauthorised disclosure would be prejudicial to British interests, to relations with a foreign Government or to the safety of British citizens. The Government therefore propose to extend this Franks concept to become "Defence and International—Confidential" and to define it somewhat more widely than Franks.
The Government believe that their conclusion represents a system more liberal than that proposed by the Franks Committee, but one which secures the highest degree of protection for information the disclosure of which may cause serious harm to the interests of the nation. Legislation on this basis will be introduced as soon as is practicable, but it cannot be during the coming Session. Although much detail remains to be worked out, I thought it right to inform the House of the Government's broad intentions.

Mr. Whitelaw: Is the Secretary of State aware that, as legislation on these matters cannot be introduced during the coming Session, there is clearly a case for the publication of a White Paper or a Green Paper so that there may be considerable discussion on a very important matter which affects a great many people in this country? Therefore, what is the

point of making this statement today instead of publishing a White Paper or a Green Paper to promote discussion?
May I make two further points? First, I do not think there will be any doubt in the House that the security of the State must come first, and if questions of national security are involved the right hon. Gentleman will have the full backing of the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members in taking the steps which are necessary in the interests of national security. He will also have such support on questions of private gain. If disclosures of information for private gain are involved, there will be widespread agreement in the House that they should come within the realms outlined by the right hon. Gentleman.
Having said that, would it not be better now to publish a paper to enable us to have a full discussion in the House on this subject instead of making a statement on it at the end of the present Session?

Mr. Rees: It is right that we should have further discussion in the House. I am surprised at the criticism about giving information to the House. I thought that the complaint always was that no information was given to the House. It was important that the statement should be made so that the Government's intentions might he taken into account. Although the operation of the Act is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, it will no doubt be open to the Attorney-General to take into account the Government's intention to introduce legislation on the lines I have indicated in considering whether to bring proceedings under Section 2. For that reason alone, it was vital that a statement should be made.
The question of private gain is the other side of the medal with regard to economic information, because it is one thing not to have criminal sanctions for the disclosure of economic information but another thing if the person who leaks the information uses it for private gain; and that would be covered under the Franks Report.

Mr. Beith: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, although the details of his proposals, if eventually implemented, will be most welcome, his statement can


be no more than a softening-up process for the absence of a measure on this subject from the Queen's Speech? In view of the fact that it has featured in previous Queen's Speeches and has been the subject of regular promises, how can the Home Secretary justify the enormous delay in implementing recommendations in the Franks Report?

Mr. Rees: There is a lot of Home Office legislation that I should like to put through the House. I have no doubt that when we discuss the question of devolution in the next Session the Liberal Party will be very helpful in ensuring that the discussion does not become too extended, and then there may be time for legislation on this subject. We shall see.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to take note of what I said to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) about the need to be clear about the Government's intent. If the hon Gentleman considers the blunderbuss approach of Section 2 and changes which have taken place over the years, he will realise that there is no doubt that it is right that the Government should make clear their intent.

Mr. Edward Lyons: What will be the effect of the proposals on the citizen? Are the Government satisfied that the Franks Report was too restrictive in its original proposals?

Mr. Rees: Water has gone under the bridge since I served on the Franks Committee and I have indicated to what degree we shall liberalise the Franks Report. The Government, like the Franks Committee, accept that the mere receipt of official information should no longer be an offence. That answers my hon. and learned Friend's question about the ordinary citizen. A number of detailed recommendations on this matter have still to be considered.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: The Home Secretary spoke at such a great rate that I thought that he referred to the Attorney-General as the "Eternal General". May I put three questions to him?
First, is it not fair to say that what the Secretary of State has proposed could be more restrictive than the present system under which Section 2 has fallen

into desuetude after the judgment of Mr. Justice Caulfield and should be put out to grass? Secondly, surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that his confusion about categories will make the situation worse. "Top Secret" will become "Super Secret: to be eaten by recipient". Therefore, the categorisation of information is the most stupid way that one could conceive for identifying it.
Thirdly, may I ask the Secretary of State how he managed to confine within his statement four different reports dealing with totally different matters, including Cabinet secrecy?

Mr. Rees: On the last point, the right hon. Gentleman misunderstands the situation. On the point before that, there is no confusion. On the first point about there being more restriction, the answer is "No". I recommend the right hon. Gentleman to read my statement before he asks questions.

Mr. George Cunningham: First, -foes my right hon. Friend accept that the important distinction is not between unauthorised information which is released with disciplinary consequences and that which is released with criminal consequences but between information which can be released and information which cannot be released? Cannot he do a great deal next year, even without a Bill, to ensure that more information within Whitehall is releasable without any con sequences at all?
Secondly, does my right hon. Friend realise that if we are to rely on disciplinary consequences to punish 'm offence it may well be that the loss (4 a pension to the person concerned is a great deal more severe in its effect than imposition of a fine?

Mr. Rees: On the first point, I think that my hon. Friend is right and chat my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have more to say about the question of open government. On the question of civil servants who abuse their position in government, my view—and it came out in the Franks Committee—was that there should not be criminal sanctions in every case but that the matter should be treated as it would be treated if a person was working for private industry and he broke the rules of the industry for which he worked.

Mr. Amery: I do not wish to express any views on the merits or demerits of the statement of the Secretary of State, but are we not running up against an important constitutional question? The Home Secretary has made a statement indicating the Government's intention. He has said that nothing will happen in the next Session. He has also indicated that the Attorney-General will be guided by his statement. What interpretation will be placed by the courts? Is it proper that legislation should be changed or modified by administrative fiat without changing the legislation?

Mr. Rees: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will read carefully what I have said and will look at what is said in the Franks Report on the role of the Attorney-General and his consent on Section 2 aspects of the Official Secrets Act 1911. No doubt it would be open to the Attorney-General to take into account the Government's intention. Plainly the Attorney-General, when giving his consent under the "catch-all" aspect of Section 2, does not at the moment recommend that criminal proceedings should be taken in every case. That is one of the aspects of the broadness—the "catch-all" nature—of Section 2.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the recommendations of the Radcliffe Committee confirming the secrecy of Cabinet documents are now in force and in particular whether members of the present Cabinet have given the kind of undertaking suggested in those recommendations?

Mr. Rees: I cannot talk particularly about that matter because frankly I do not know the answer, but I shall bring it to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. On the question of ministerial memoirs, plainly one must take into account the time when a memoir is published. If my right hon. Friend will look at the Franks Report, he will see that it is recommended that the declassification of documents should take place more regularly, and the report deals with the nature of the information that is revealed. Those two aspects would have to be taken into account.

Mr. Aitken: Is the Secretary of State aware that his surprisingly premature

announcement looks at first glance like a step in the right direction but may well turn out to be a step backwards because it immediately creates many problems of definition? For example, the whole exercise will be meaningless unless the classification rules are also changed, because many Government documents are already over-classified. Finally, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the free Press in a free country will find it almost impossible to welcome his statement until it has seen the terms of the as yet nonexistent Bill?

Mr. Rees: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should read again the Franks Report in the light of what I have said. Of course over-classification is an important matter, but the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways in relation to a free Press. If he agrees with the announcement which I made last week, he will, I believe, recognise that the law or the rules should apply overall and not just to people, perhaps like himself, whom he might regard as in a special position.

Mr. Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend take it that he deserves to be congratulated, since it appears that the statement which he has made today has not been leaked to the Press beforehand, which indicates that our security arrangements are being improved?

Mr. Rees: That is the way I conduct my business.

Mr. Adley: Perhaps due to the unhappy coincidence in timing of the statement which the Home Secretary made last Thursday about Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball, there may be some confusion, so will the right hon. Gentleman make clear beyond peradventure that, as he holds the view that those two gentlemen threaten the security of the country and the personal safety of individuals in the service of the Crown, nothing which he has said today in any way changes the circumstances surrounding the cases of those two gentlemen?

Mr. Rees: I was talking about the Immigration Act, not the Official Secrets Act.

Dr. M. S. Miller: As the reduction in commercial value on the market would immediately be enormous, will my right


hon. Friend give an undertaking that he will hold up legislation until my right hon. Friends the Members for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) have managed to publish their memoirs?

Mr. Rees: It all depends on what they say.

Mr. Lawrence: Is the House to understand the significance of what the Home Secretary has said to be that any persons who might be contemplating releasing to the public documents which are now covered by Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act may be guaranteed immunity from prosecution because of the advice which the Attorney-General is likely to give?

Mr. Rees: No, it cannot possibly be so. The last few years have shown that if anybody releases a document which matters not at all—be it remembered that Section 2 covers everything—the practice, not what I have said, is that nothing will be done. That is what the Attorney-General has shown by use of his consent. But if anybody gives out documents which are secret, defence-confidential, or the like, the full panoply of the law will be brought into play. What has been put to me is that if the blunderbuss is replaced by an Armalite rifle, one will get to the point rather than the general.

Mr. McNamara: My right hon. Friend will recall that an Armalite rifle is a lethal instrument. Will he confirm that the basis of his statement today will be the criterion on which the Government will act from today, and, if he cannot produce a Bill this Session because of the pressure of parliamentary time, will he consider producing a draft Bill some time this Session so that we may have a good chew on what the Government intend?

Mr. Rees: There is not much time left this Session, but I shall certainly take into account what my hon. Friend has said. The role of the Attorney-General in giving his consent is a matter for him, and I cannot alter that.

Mr. Whitelaw: Do not these exchanges prove conclusively to the Home Secretary that this highly complicated, sensitive and extremely important matter cannot be

dealt with on the basis of a statement suddenly produced without any real notice to the House? Would it not therefore be far better, since legislation is not to be produced in the next Session, that the matter should proceed by a Green or White Paper and full debate in the House?

Mr. Rees: That must be so—we cannot proceed on the basis of a statement to the House—but since it is a long time since the Franks Committee reported, I am sure that a declaration of intent by the Government in the way I have stated it is important. We shall not reach the point of legislation shortly, and of course there will have to be more information since the Franks Report, as the right hon. Gentleman will see, covered a great deal more ground than the aspects of it which I have raised.

Mr. Whitelaw: Will the Home Secretary therefore undertake that he will produce a Green Paper or a White Paper which may be subject to debate?

Mr. Rees: Of course I undertake to give further information. I am sure that it should not be a Green Paper, because the Franks Report, in a sense, is "green". We need something far "whiter" on which people can think.

Mr. Newens: Reverting to the question asked by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), is my right hon. Friend aware of the wide disquiet raised by the procedure for dealing with aliens who are accused of offences involving security? Will the legislation which my right hon. Friend proposes provide an opportunity for changing the situation so that those who are not British citizens can be provided with evidence of the acts of which they are alleged to be guilty, so that they may answer then in the same way as others may, since the present position, as instanced by that case, is totally unsatisfactory?

Mr. Rees: However the law may be changed in the future, I can certainly conceive of circumstances when the information could not be provided because of the repercussions it could have in the security field.

ESSEX AREA HEALTH AUTHORITY (AMBULANCE SERVICE)

Dr. McDonald: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
the action taken by the Essex Area Health Authority in suspending ambulance men serving at 19 out of its 28 ambulance stations.
The lock-out affects a wide area, but for Thurrock it now means that only two ambulances are covering the area. The Thurrock area has many factories, including two power stations and two oil refineries. In the event of a serious industrial accident, such as an explosion at one of the power stations, it would be impossible to provide adequate emergency cover. No back-up could be provided by ambulances at stations in other parts of the area served by the Essex Area Health Authority.
In view of the possibility of a serious emergency, the Minister should intervene to end the deadlock and ensure that normal ambulance services are resumed as soon as possible. I submit that this is a matter of urgent public concern dealing with a specific issue of great importance which should have priority.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that she thinks should have urgent consideration: namely,
the action taken by the Essex Area Health Authority in suspending ambulance men serving at 19 out of its 28 ambulance stations.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision.
The hon. Lady gave me notice that she would raise this matter. I have given careful consideration to the representations which she has made, but I have to rule that her submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. I cannot, therefore, submit the hon. Lady's application to the House.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL

Lords Reason for insisting on their amendments in lieu of certain of their amendments to which the Commons have disagreed and for their disagreement to the Commons amendments in lieu of certain of their amendments on which they have insisted.

Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that a message has been brought from the Lords by one of their Clerks, as follows:
The Lords insist on their amendments in lieu of certain of their amendments to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill to which the Commons have disagreed; and disagree to the amendments proposed by the Commons in lieu of certain amendments on which the Lords have insisted, for which insistence and disagreement they assign the following Reason:
Because the ship repairing companies named in the Bill are likely to be less competitive and less successful and to be able to provide less employment if they are nationalised.

Question,
That the Lords amendments be now considered,
put forthwith pursuant to the Order [8th November].—[Mr. Varley]—and agreed to.

4.0 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley): I beg to move, That this House doth insist on its disagreement with the Lords in the amendments on which the Lords insist.
I must once again make it quite clear that it is the firm policy of the Government to take ship repairing into public ownership. That commitment was stated in clear and explicit terms in both Labour Party election manifestos in 1974. That commitment was just as firm as our policy to bring the aircraft and shipbuilding and marine engineering industries into public ownership.
Ship repairing was considered for inclusion in our programme at the same time as the other proposals. It was not included as an afterthought, and the Tory peers in the House of Lords are now taking it upon themselves to tell the Government what policies they will allow us to pursue. They, and they alone, have the arrogance and effrontery to tell this elected House of Commons what policies they will permit us to implement.

Mr. Julian Amery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having talked about the Tory peers—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) was raising a point of order.

Mr. Amery: It was in fear that the Secretary of State was inadvertently misleading the House. He used the phrase "the Tory peers and they alone". Does he include Lord Shinwell in that category?

Mr. Varley: Ship repairing was included—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—in our proposals as long ago as 1973. It was included for strong and powerful reasons, and the industrial case is overwhelming. I need not go over the ground that I went over last week, but will merely point out that ship repairing is fragmented; it has a rapidly declining work force; the level of capital investment has been disastrous and there is urgent need for the injection of capital; and modernisation is needed.
All these conclusions were reached by PA Management Consultants, which was appointed and asked to report on the industry by the last Conservative Government. The PA report said that ship repairing would decline if it had not got a proper structure and there was not an injection of capital investment. Of course that can best be done under the umbrella of British Shipbuilders.
There has been, as we know, a vigorous and determined campaign to keep ship repairing out of public ownership. Bristol Channel Ship Repairers has been at the forefront of this campaign. That company has conducted a highly misleading and expensive publicity campaign, and of course it has not been without effect.
In future, the House of Lords will be known as "Mr. Bailey's poodle", but I should like to inform the House that even Bristol Channel Ship Repairers acknowledges the difficulties of its own industry—that is, the poor investment, the need for capital investment—and it is only right also that I should inform the House that even after the Government's intentions were known and ship repairing was included in our manifesto, we received an application from Bristol

Channel Ship Repairers asking for £20 million of Government assistance. So much for this thrusting, stand-on-your-own-feet, entrepreneurial company which now claims that it can do without Government assistance. Throughout, its attitude has been one of deceit, and it has been supported by a misleading public relations exercise, not to mention its bullying tactics towards some of its own employees.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: rose—

Mr. Michael Grylls: rose—

Mr. Varley: The Bill has been before Parliament—

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: rose—

Mr. Grylls: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is clear that the Secretary of State is not giving way. We are limited for time in this debate, and I hope that we can hear both sides in reasonable order.

Mr. Varley: The Bill has been before Parliament for nearly a year. The Second Reading took place on 2nd December 1975 and there have been 58 Committee Sittings and hundreds of hours of debate. The Government have not lost a single Division in this House on the Bill, and if it does not reach the statute book soon the consequences for those industries will be catastrophic.
The aircraft industry's future depends on a coherent strategy based on collaborative projects with the United States and other European countries, and if we do not get it, along with the others, into public ownership, it cannot pursue those projects. The shipbuilding industry is unlikely to survive without public ownership and substantial Government help, and the same applies to ship repairing.
The Tory peers, responsible to no one and elected by no one, take it upon themselves to decide which election commitments this House should fulfil, and the only thing that we ask, and all that we have ever asked throughout, is that the Tory peers pursue the rôle that they normally pursue when a Tory Government are in office. We are and will be forced, therefore, to reintroduce the Bill


in the next Session of Parliament, and I want to make it clear that the reintroduced Bill will not offer any improvement in compensation terms, that the safeguarding provisions will remain the same, and that the same effective dates will continue in effect. I say this so that there shall be no false expectations and no misunderstandings about any financial benefit resulting from the obduracy of the other place.
The impact on the industries of delaying the Bill any further will be extremely damaging to thousands of those who seek their livelihoods in the shipbuilding and ship repairing and aircraft industries, and the responsibility for that is due entirely to the Tory peers, aided and abetted by the Tories in this House.

Mr. Tom King: The Secretary of State's speech was a nauseating mixture of threat and blackmail of the kind to which this House least enjoys listening. On a measure which has been before Parliament as long as this one and which has been discussed on so many occasions, one might at least have expected the right hon. Gentleman to have had enough practice to get his facts right.
His first error was picked up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). The Secretary of State had said that the Tory peers, and the Tory peers alone, were responsible for the Bill once again being before the House of Commons. This is an interesting description of the vote that took place this morning, in which 16 Liberal peers, 27 Cross-Bench peers, and the only Labour Member of the other House who took the trouble to speak on the Second Reading of the Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell—voted against the ship repairing provision. I shall not attempt to repeat the colourful language—nor am I permitted to do so under the rules—used by the noble Lord as to the particular ocean into which he suggests that Government Ministers should jump for their attitude to the Lords amendment.
The Secretary of State is not even implementing his own party's manifesto. He has stated once again today at the Dispatch Box that nationalisation of the ship repairing industry is in the Labour manifesto. That happens to be correct. It is in the manifesto. The only difference is that the Government are not

actually seeking to nationalise the ship repairing industry. They are seeking to nationalise a certain selected number of companies—not the largest and not the main companies in certain cases but a very select number of ship repairing companies. This cannot be said to be implementation when the Government have not even achieved what the monifesto originally said that they were seeking to do.
The Secretary of State must have been bitten by his Minister of State because those of us who have travelled along the long path of the Bill have come to recognise the particularly nasty brand of vitriol that has been injected into the arguments about Bristol Channel Ship Repairers. I feel that the attitude of the Government and the incredible decision today to continue the battle over the Bill are motivated almost more than anything else on the Labour Benches by a personal sense of resentment that one company has had the nerve to fight against the Government. [Interruption.] We never hear the other companies mentioned in this connection.
When the Secretary of State rises at the Dispatch Box and uses such offensive terms as "deceit"—terms which he may care to use outside the House and face the consequences—and then has the nerve almost in the same breath to say that the Government have never lost a vote in this House over the Bill, it shows an amazing amount of conceit on the Government's part.
I find the decision quite incredible. I have been involved in the fight up to now against the Bill. We have to recognise that, having fought it by every constitutional means open to us, at the end of the day we have failed over the main provisions of the Bill. It lies within the Government's power to carry into nationalisation the aircraft industry and the shipbuilding industry and, sadly, we are no longer able to prevent this. The Secretary of State has told us—this is his belief—that these industries face very serious problems, yet despite this he has taken the decision to put all that at risk.
The Secretary of State can have no guarantee that, at such time as the Bill may be reintroduced, he will still have a majority in this House. Therefore the whole future of these industries, as far as


he and his Government are concerned, is put at risk. Although I welcome the situation—because we are determined to defeat the Bill—I personally find it a quite incredible decision. I believe that it is purely motivated by feelings of malice towards one particular company in the industry.
I take no pride in the reasons that we have sent back to the Lords with every Bill for our rejection of the Lords amendments. I think they are pretty good rubbish. You do not always get a cheer for your announcements, Mr. Speaker, but I think that the reception given to the Lords' reasons on this occasion summed up the case absolutely.
The ship repairing companies named in the Bill are likely to be less competitive, less successful, and likely to be able to provide less employment, if they are nationalised. That has always been our case, and it has never been adequately answered. We shall therefore vote, as we always have done, to ensure that this particular industry is excluded from the Bill.

Mr. Donald Anderson: We have been over this ground many times before, and on every occasion this House has voted for the Bill. There has been a shuttle, and the only losers in this shuttle are the work force in the several industries concerned and the national interest in these vital industries.
There are two basic questions before us—first, the propriety of ship repairing being taken into public ownership, and, secondly, the constitutional propriety of the other place in acting as it has.
It is clear that much of the steam about the ship repairing industry has been generated by one company, of which roughly a quarter of the work force is employed in my constituency. At an earlier stage of debate I paid tribute to the commercial record of the company and its industrial relations record. I also expressed the wish that a compromise solution could be found at an earlier stage of the proceedings. That was not to be.
4.15 p.m.
I also recognise the anxieties of the work force of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers about the future, but that future could be in jeopardy whatever the

form of ownership, whether Bristol Channel Ship Repairers remains as it is or is taken, as I now hope, into public ownership. The natural anxieties of the men—they are not ideological in any way, about nationalisation or otherwise—are such that they want to ensure that their jobs continue roughly as they are now. Those natural anxieties have been fanned by a very strident and very misleading propaganda campaign on the part of the company.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: Does my hon. Friend know how much it cost the management of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers in its attempt to bribe Members of Parliament in furtherance of its own campaign against nationalisation?

Mr. Anderson: One of the Conservative Members—some of whom are very keen to accept briefs and information from the company concerned—could answer that question rather more appropriately than I can.
As the Minister said on the last occasion, over 60 per cent. of the work force in the yard in my constituency expressed their approval of the nationalisation measure, and they resent very much indeed the criticism of them by the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) during the last debate on this issue.
We have now reached a stage where ultimately the will of the Government will prevail in respect of ship repairing, as well as the other two major industries. The question is what the health of these basic and major industries will be if the uncertainty is allowed to continue as a result of the action taken by the other place. The uncertainty is detrimental to jobs and to job prospects.
The continuance of the propaganda campaign by the company is also detrimental to the job interests of those employed in that company. In particular, it has inspired letters from a number of foreign companies which currently use the yard to the effect that after nationalisation they propose not to use the services of the company. One such letter was quoted by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) in the debate in this House on 28th July. The company is stimulating those letters and therefore adversely affecting its prospects post-nationalisation.
A brochure entitled "For Hire" contains the threat that specialists working in the company will leave after nationalisation. It is stated in this glossy brochure that the
highly efficient South Wales ship repairing industry will … reecive no priority and inevitably die. We must safeguard the future for our specialists, some of who have already left our industry because of the threat of nationalisation.
Clearly, by such propaganda the company is adversely affecting the job prospects of the work force and, indeed, its own future.
I say again that the will of the Government in this matter ultimately will prevail. It is in the national—indeed it is in the local—interest that these companies are taken over as going concerns. I appeal to Bristol Channel Ship Repairers and to those Members of the other place who have again rejected the democratic will of this House to think again. If they do not, it will show that Members of the other place are not interested in the future of these companies but are interested simply in the political impact of this campaign. It will also show that the company is uninterested in the jobs of its work force and almost keen to leave a shell behind it as the nationalisation measure takes effect so that it can say "We told you so", and reveal its own real motives in this campaign.
In my view, it is time to remove that uncertainty for the sake of the work force and for the sake of the country. There is no reason why after nationalisation, given the commitments which my right hon. Friend has written into Clause 5 in relation to decentralisation and separate profit centres, the company should not continue in the new structure under the same management and with the same degree of commercial success.
I turn briefly to the action taken by the other place. Quite clearly it is a politically motivated campaign by another place which has no—

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Has the hon. Gentleman the brass nerve to tell us that he believes that the majority of people in the country support this wretched Bill?

Mr. Neil Kinnock (Bedwelty): Before my hon. Friend answers that question, will he say whether he thinks the majority of people in this country support the idea of an unelected House of Lords ruling the country?

Mr. Anderson: I am certain of one fact in relation to both questions. It is that an unelected unrepresentative other place has no legitimacy in relation to a matter of this kind which has been the subject of a manifesto by my party and which has been debated by and has received the approval of this House on a number of occasions. The other place has no legitimacy, and its Members should keep off our pitch. As a result of their action, they have made many Government supporters believe that their delaying powers should be abolished and that, because of the partisan motives of that unrepresentative assembly, their Lordships should have their teeth drawn speedily.

Mr. Robert Adley: I thought that the speech by the Secretary of State was a disgraceful, spiteful, mean and nasty speech which was quite unworthy of him. In effect, he said that those who dared to stand in the way of this Government, however much they had the constitution on their side, would be villified, insulted and abused by him and by his sidekick, the Minister of State.
One Government supporter referred to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell as "a turncoat". In view of that, I do not think that any further comment is necessary from those people in the country who know full well that the noble Lord has not always put as his first priority the preservation of private enterprise. The other day in a radio broadcast, the noble Lord used an analogy which I thought quite proper when he asked whether, if this or any other Government decided that in the national interest it was necessary to nationalise the boot and shoe manufacturing industry, they would also feel it necessary to nationalise every cobbler's shop in every High Street in the land. Perhaps it would not be profitable to spend too long dwelling on the future of cobblers in discussing this Bill, however.
The justification of the Labour manifesto was smashed by the Home Secretary less than an hour ago in this Chamber when he gave his reason why it was not possible for legislation to amend the Official Secrets Act to be introduced for the forthcoming Session, despite the fact that this was included in the Labour Party manifesto of 1974.
It is clear that the Government are out to repeat the Bill-killing exercise of 1970–71, only this time they are out to kill Mr. Bailey, and in case anyone may be left with the impression that it is merely another place which is trying to preserve Bristol Channel Ship Repairers and the ship repairing industry, I hope that the House will bear with me while I read extracts from two letters which I have received from trade unionists working for Bristol Channel Ship Repairers.
The first letter that I quote is dated 30th June and is from a Mr. A. J. Dobbs. He writes:
We shall continue our fight to save the jobs of those employed in ship repairing in South Wales and we sincerely hope that it will be third time lucky when the Report stage is discussed. Your continued support will be much appreciated.
I assure Mr. Dobbs that he will have my continued support.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is my hon. Friend aware that Mr. Dobbs is a constituent of mine and is present in the Gallery now? He is an employee of this company and, like many others, is fighting a stern battle to save the company.

Mr. Adley: I did not know that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and delighted to hear what he says.
The second letter from which I quote is dated 7th June and is from a Mr. Leslie James in Cardiff. He writes:
The Government has said that nationalisation will protect many thousands of jobs and that is why the Bill must go through. I and many other people in our company maintain that in fact the reverse will happen and that nationalisation of our small company will inevitably reduce our efficiency and put all our jobs in jeopardy. I would ask you most sincerely to continue your efforts against this Bill and to help us in any way possible to remain as we are.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is my hon. Friend aware that Mr. Leslie James from Cardiff is also in the Gallery and that

he knows far more about this industry than the Government Ministers handling the Bill?

Mr. Adley: With respect, my hon. Friend's last comment does not necessarily mean that he is complimenting Mr. James very much.
It is clear that the motivation of the Treasury Bench throughout our proceedings on this Bill has not been knowledge of or even concern for the industry. It has been based on dogma. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said, what the Government are doing today is possibly—it may be, mercifully—jeopardising their Bill because they are not prepared to believe that nine-tenths of the cake is better than none. They want everything and they want it now, and anyone who has the temerity to stand in their way has to be crushed.
The people who work in the industries know perfectly well that the Government have had for many years all the powers that they needed to invest in those industries, to keep them going and to keep men working.

Mr. Peter Rost: Can my hon. Friend explain why a party which pretends to believe in industrial democracy has refused persistently to consult those who are most directly affected by the nationalisation of the ship repairing firms and to find out from them that the majority of them do not wish to be included in nationalisation?

Mr. Adley: I can answer that quite simply. It is because the creed of Socialism is "Do not do as I do; do as I say."
On 28th June, I asked the Secretary of State for Industry under what legislative powers the Concorde was funded, whether those powers had altered since 1962 and to what extent the Government's powers to effect intervention in the aircraft industry had increased during that period. The right hon. Gentleman's answer is worth reading to the House because it confirms quite clearly that the Government have all the powers that they need. The Minister of State said
From 1962 to 1968 Concorde was funded under the Civil Aviation Act 1949. Since 1968 Concorde has also been funded under the


Industrial Expansion Act 1968, later amended by the Concorde Aircraft Act 1973".
In his final sentence the Minister said
Apart from these Acts, no Government have needed to take additional powers during this period specifically to intervene in the aircraft industry."—[Official Report, 28th June 1976; Vol. 914, c. 3.]

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Kinnock: It is obvious to the whole House and to the country that in respect of neither these companies nor any other company have we required additional powers for the Government to give them money. What we have needed is to take additional power on behalf of the people to get something back for our money in the form of accountability. The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) has not even been awake during this period.

Mr. Adley: Mr. Adley The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and his hon. Friends are taking powers not on behalf of the people, but on behalf of themselves and the gratification of their own dogmatic views. As we all know, many of those who work in the ship repairing industry support the Lords amendment and are opposed to the nationalisation of their industry. There is no question but that the hon. Gentleman has shot his own fox when he says that the Government wish to take powers "on behalf of the people". I doubt very much whether the people of this country believe that in their dealings with nationalised industries they get a better, more adequate personalised service than from private industry.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Could we not settle this argument by putting it to the people to decide by having a General Election on the issue?

Mr. Adley: Nothing would give me—and, I imagine, a very large proportion of the people of this country—greater pleasure than to accept my hon. Friend's advice.

Mr. John Ryman: is the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) not aware that the Government were elected in October 1974 when the manifesto was clearly presented? This industry represents jobs for a great many people in the North-East. There was an express mandate to nationalise both these

industries in the manifesto of the October 1974 Election.

Mr. Adley: I doubt that I shall be taking advice either from the hon. Member or his agent on methods of obtaining election to this House. I believe that the people of this country are totally opposed to the introduction of this Bill.

Mr. Ryman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. An imputation of a personal kind has been made against me by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington in a most scurrilous aside, and I would ask for your protection in asking him to withdraw that imputation. I have been fully exonerated by a High Court of law upon a criminal charge after a lengthy hearing presided over by a High Court judge. The hon. Gentleman, with his usual scurrilous mind, has made an imputation against me—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. If the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) did impute any motive he should withdraw it.

Mr. Adley: I am not aware of what I stand accused. The hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Ryman) intervened and I merely replied. If the hon. Member thinks that anything I have said is in any way intended—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If indeed there is some misunderstanding about this matter it would be better for the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington to withdraw whatever the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Ryman) thought he said.

Mr. Adley: Of course I would instantly withdraw any imputation on the hon. Gentleman's character.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman's honour is now satisfied.

Mr. Ryman: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Blyth has been heard. The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington has withdrawn any possible imputation. The matter is now settled.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Further to that point or order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In order to avoid


doubt will you make clear in your ruling that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) made no imputation, and in so far as he was thought to have made one he properly, humbly and unreservedly withdrew? Will you make clear that the fact that the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Ryman) has been acquitted in a criminal court does not necessitate Opposition Members seeking his advice on political matters?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that is a matter of debate rather than a point of order.

Mr. Adley: I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I did use the word "advice", and the hon. Member for Blyth was advising me on the views of those in the North-East.

Mr. Ryman: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House must not get into wrangles on this matter. This particular point has been well and truly debated and has been settled.

Mr. Ryman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The withdrawal by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington, in my respectful submission to you, was not broad enough. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was trying to be obtuse or whether he could not help it, but the implication and the imputation was clear. I ask for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the withdrawal was not broad enough.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I rule that the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington withdrew any imputation he may have made.

Mr. Adley: It would be in the interests of the House if I were to bring my speech to a conclusion. I am concerned that because of the interventions of the hon. Member for Blyth I shall appear to have made a very long speech.
Most people on the Opposition side of the House are aware that the Government are desperately seeking a con-

frontation between the House of Commons and the House of Lords as a means of distracting the minds of the people of this country from the state into which they, the Government, have brought the economy. I suspect that the only way in which the present Government could possibly and conceivably answer the call for an election made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) would be on the basis of a Lords versus Commons clash. If the Government were to go to the country and seek to be re-elected on that basis they would be much less successful than the Conservative Government when they went to the country in February 1974.

Mr. Eric S. Heller: The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) has claimed that workers in the ship-repairing industry do not want public ownership of that industry. He based his case on two letters received from two workers in the Bristol Channel Ship Repairing Company. Perhaps he is not aware that the whole of the ship-repairing industry is not concentrated in Bristol. Other ports have ship-repairing concerns, the workers in which have clearly indicated by their telegrams, letters and representations to their Members of Parliament that they are more than in favour of public ownership of the ship-repairing industry. The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington should also be aware that some of us have actually worked in the ship-repairing industry. I have at different times worked in those industries where joiners are employed.
The hon. Member apparently would not know about interchangeability, which is precisely the subject I wish to develop. The Opposition often talks absolute rot on industrial matters. They do not understand the interchangeability that takes place among the work forces in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries. Workers employed on building ships find that when the ship is launched and completed, their next job is in ship repairing. Therefore, the argument by the other place that ship repairing s a separate industry is a lot of rubbish. Ship repairing is as much a part of the overall industry as are shipbuilding and marine engineering.
The Lords know that their argument on this point is phoney, but they advance it just the same because it suits their political objective, which is to hold up the Government's legislation. The Conservatives say that they are deeply concerned about jobs in the ship-repairing industry. If they knew anything about that industry, they would know—

Mr. Grylls: Of course we know about it.

Mr. Heffer: They have yet to prove to me that they know anything about the industry. I have heard no argument from the Conservatives to show that they know the first thing about it. I am always willing to be convinced by a convincing argument.
If hon. Members opposite knew anything about the industry, they would know that employment in it had fallen drastically since 1946, when it was at its peak, when reconversion was taking place. On Merseyside the numbers employed have dropped from 20,000 to about 3,000 or below. All that happened under private ownership, but the industry has still had public money. The Conservatives always want public money—the taxpayer's money—injected into industry, but with no public accountability or public control.
If it is logical for the Lords to accept public ownership of shipbuilding and marine engineering, it is equally logical for them to accept the public ownership of ship repairing.

Mr. Adley: Which does the hon. Member think is more accountable to the public and its customers—the CEGB or Marks and Spencer?

Mr. Heffer: It is always wrong to give way to Opposition Members, with one or two exceptions. In the main, they make no contribution whatever to intelligent discussion. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hurry up.''] I can assure the hon. Member that I can go on for a long time about shipbuilding and ship repairing. I spent many years in the industry, working on the shop floor. I know a great deal about it and I could explain at length how badly it has been organised and run and how it needs a complete overhaul.
The PA Management Consultants' report indicated clearly the need for

reorganisation of the industry and for public money to be put into it, and, although it did not call for public ownership, the answer was clear. Public ownership is the only way forward for the industry.
5.45 p.m.
Why are the Lords objecting to this part of the Bill? If they are opposed to the whole concept, logic demands that they should throw it out completely. But they have not done so because they want to wound the Government as deeply as possible without destroying them, because they know that in the process of destroying the Government they would destroy themselves. I say to the House of Lords that by its action it has in the long term destroyed itself already. It has put the final nail in its coffin.
In 1909, the other place threw out the progressive Budget introduced by the Liberal Party. The Liberals were compelled to bring in the Parliament Act in 1911 to ensure that the House of Lords had no right to stop financial measures introduced by the House of Commons. In 1945 the reforming Labour Government found the Conservative majority in the other place opposing their Bills and were compelled to amend the Parliament Act in order to clip the wings of the other place. We are now faced with a further development in which a reforming Government are being opposed in their wishes and desires by an unelected and unrepresentative majority in the other place.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: In those circumstances, in which Labour Government legislation has been blocked over a period of years, why have a Labour Government never abolished the House of Lords and why have they consistently appointed superannuated Members of Parliament to the other place?

Mr. Heffer: That is a very good question. I believe that the other place should have been abolished a long time ago. I trust that when a Labour Government introduce a Bill to abolish the House of Lords, the hon. Gentleman's party will openly support them in the Lobby.
The time has come to abolish the House of Lords. It is an outdated, superannuated body, and we should get rid


of it at the earliest opportunity. There is one factor that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) should bear in mind. How do we know that the devolution Bill next Session, if it gets through this House, will not be blocked by the other place, which thinks that it knows better than the elected majority here? That is a thought for the hon. Gentleman and his party to consider seriously.
I end with one comment about my old colleague and friend, Lord Shinwell. Lord Shinwell and I have fought many battles both against each other and on the same side. I am not sorry that he has spoken out in the way he has. That is his opinion. He has always been renowned for openly saying what he thinks. People like myself were brought up on the words and policies advocated by Lord Shinwell. I well remember that in his early days he wanted to see the other place done away with at the earliest possible moment. Perhaps Lord Shinwell has mellowed in his old age. That is all I would say about what Lord Shinwell has said.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Before this debate is concluded I hope that the Government Front Bench will take up the point raised so appositely by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) about why the Government are not proposing some immediate action about the other place. They would find it embarrassing to take up the other points raised by the hon. Gentleman, reinforced by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), about what on earth Labour Administrations have been doing since the war, leaving the other place intact, and only contributing to the agenda of reform the absurd Bill opposed by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) which I also voted against because it merely substituted patronage for birth. Unless the Government Front Bench come forward with at least a sketch of some measure to deal with the other place, we shall be bound to conclude that all their rancid and angry words on this subject are just artificial thunder on a stage.
The miserable fact is that four great industries and those who work in them—aerospace, shipbuilding, marine engineering and ship repairing—are existing in a long continued state of suspense which is damaging to everyone who works in

those industries as well as to the national economy. This suspense has persisted for three main reasons. First, the Government were foolhardy in the early part of 1974 in bringing forward an identical measure to this when they had not got a majority in this House. It would have been perfectly honourable and satisfactory to tell the nation that that part of their manifesto must await the acquisition of a majority of the people.
Then in October 1974 they had the temerity to bring the measure forward again, in spite of the damage it had already done, and when they had only the support of 28 per cent. of the electorate. Because of their foolhardiness the responsibility is theirs for now having landed the industry in this desperate situation.
Secondly, it became apparent at an early stage, although not apparent in precise form, that because of the inclusion of ship repairing the Bill was bristling with hybridity. Instead of acknowledging that, and facing the fact, the Government took refuge in the wholly unworthy device of scrambling through this House a measure which deprived legitimate private interests of the time-honoured procedure for letting private interests be represented in front of this House.
Thirdly, and with particular impudence, they have in the last few days strained at the gnat of ship repairing which, if exempted, would have meant that the rest of the Bill would have been theirs. Therefore, the responsibility for the continued and damaging suspense is entirely the Government's. There can be no question about the continued resistance by Liberal Members to the Government's stubborn attitudes.
I would repudiate, as far as Liberal Members are concerned, the extraordinary incentive to cowardice which appeared in The Sunday Times leading article only yesterday. Having condemned the Government's action on this Bill on every other count, the article ended by saying that because of the continued resistance in the other place, which might sour industrial relations, their Lordships ought to withdraw in spite of right being entirely on their Lordships' side. That is a supine attitude which can come only from people


who are desperate to get every reader of every political complexion to subscribe to their newspaper.
The other place, armed with the powers that Mr. Attlee's Government gave them—no doubt after the sort of due consideration that Mr. Attlee gave to everything—are not wise to add to Bills or interfere in the detailed process of legislation but are wise to act as a sluice gate to hold up a flood of outdated legislation from a manifesto which is already two years old and in circumstances that have entirely changed.
Speaking entirely for myself, I see very little difference in merit between one House of Parliament that depends upon the accident of birth or patronage and another House of Parliament that depends upon the accident of first-past-the-post elections. They are both highly unrepresentative and the circumstances of their membership are now virtually discredited. For all these reasons our resistance to the Government's behaviour has been reinforced by what has happened during the last few days.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: There is an old saying that those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. Nothing could have been madder than what the Lords have done over this legislation. They have sealed their fate.
Hon. Gentlemen who believe in democracy—and say that democracy is being imperilled by certain people outside this House—but who then subscribe to a philosophy that an unelected Chamber, dominated by Tories, should be more powerful than this House are the enemies of democracy. They may be prepared to put up with the Lords acting in that manner, but the people outside will not.

Mr. John Pardoe: This House is not democratic.

Mr. Fernyhough: If this is not democracy, why does the hon. Gentleman bother to come to this House? Why does he not go back to his constituency and say "I am not standing for election again. It is not democracy. Therefore, I do not want to stand again."?

Mr. Pardoe: The answer is that I represent more than 50 per cent. of the people who voted in my constituency at

the last election while the great majority of hon. Members in this House do not.

Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Gentleman does not represent as many people in his constituency as I do in mine. Nearer 70 per cent. of my constituents who voted, voted for me.
The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) said that he had received two letters from men employed by BCSR. They were probably from the same ship repair employees who wrote to me. I also received several letters from the same source. Is not that funny? I doubt if there is one hon. Member who did not have letters from employees of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers. No one prompted those letters. Every lad who worked with that company knew Ernie Fernyhough and decided to write to him. I represent more ship repair workers than the entire work force of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers, and I know what they want because I have been meeting them for 30 years.

5.0 p.m.

Sir Raymond Gower: If the workmen in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency wish to be taken into nationalised ownership, do they also insist that other workmen in other parts of the country—in Bristol Channel Ship Repairers for example—must also be taken into nationalised ownership?

Mr. Fernyhough: Most of the ship repair workers in my constituency already work for a nationalised ship repair yard. That yard is doing very well and since nationalisation it has employed more workers. It is doing very much better than it did before nationalisation.
About a month ago my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) and I visited that shipyard. Out of the four ships in the yard, three were from foreign countries. That yard has lost none of its overseas customers as a result of nationalisation. Its sales staff are out seeking jobs, employment is going up and tonnage is going up. Similar consequences will apply in the other yards when they are nationalised.
Had it not been for the Labour Government and nationalisation, 1,500 shipyard workers would have been unemployed now. Opposition Members did not oppose the nationalisation of the


shipyards that Court Line wanted to dump.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On the point that nationalisation can safeguard jobs, does the right hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that the Government are willing to throw the Bill overboard and so lose the safety which he sees in the nationalisation of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries?

Mr. Fernyhough: I welcome the fact that the Government are prepared to stand up to an unelected House. I have always been a nationaliser, and I have been elected 10 times on that basis. There is no misaapprehension in my constituency about where I stand on this issue.
The hon. Members for Christchurch and Lymington and Bridgwater (Mr. King) called in aid Lord Shinwell. You and I, Mr. Speaker, have known Lord Shinwell probably for longer than any Opposition Member. You and I know that he was not always loved and treasured by the Opposition as he is now. I remember the time when he was despised and rejected by them. I remember the time when they would hardly allow him to speak because they hated the philosophy he represented.
Even without Lord Shinwell, the Liberal peers and the Cross-Benchers, there has always been a Tory majority against the Bill. The Tories have an inbuilt power in the House of Lords which enables them to win even when Cross-Benchers, Liberals and Labour Peers vote against them. The House of Lords has committed hara-kiri because it has decided to thwart the will of the people.
My hon. Friend said that if the Bill were postponed because of the decision made by the Lords, future compensation would in no way be affected. I hope that the Opposition have been following the industrial Press and have seen statements from those in top management about the uncertainty which their attitude is causing in the industry. Let them look at what has happened to share prices. When the Bill is implemented and we pay compensation, I hope that compensation will be based not on what my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend were prepared to pay earlier but on the present-day

Stock Exchange prices. Share prices have tumbled because of the attitude of Liberals, Tories and nationalists. They have brought near to bankruptcy what could be good enterprising firms. This weekend a shiver went through shipbuilding and ship-repair localities.
If more public money is not forthcoming, the workers wonder what will happen to their jobs. Will the Government bail them out even if the industries are not under public ownership? Will there be more people like the gentleman from Bristol Channel Ship Repairers who objects to his small yards being taken into public ownership but has no diffidence about coming to the public purse with a big begging bowl? Will there be more who say "I can guarantee employment if the Government will dole out £20 million at a time"? That is, apparently, what Bristol Channel Ship Repairers has been asking of the Government.

Mr. Tom King: I did not deal with that point because I knew that the House was anxious to proceed. That was a standard application for regional development aid. Is the right hon. Gentleman opposed to regional development aid? According to his previous speeches, he believes that all companies in assisted areas should receive regional development aid. If the Secretary of State's intervention was meant to be an attack on companies which claim regional aid, it was a very important statement.

Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Member for Bridgwater, especially now that he has been promoted, has to be much more careful. He cannot go round making fine weekend speeches advocating the cutting of public expenditure and then come here and defend a private company which asks the Government for £20 million. It is a contradiction in one speech to demand cuts in Government expenditure and in the next to demand that £20 million of public money be given to a private enterprise concern under the regional industrial policy. I support the regional industrial policy and I do not mind if public expenditure goes in that direction, but I shall not make a speech next week demanding cuts in public expenditure.
My constituency was crucified in the 1930s because its shipyards and ship-repairing establishments were closed. We


have just celebrated the fortieth anniversary of the march from Jarrow to London. Many of those who took part in that march were ship-repair and shipyard workers. Since then in my constituency the industry has made some recovery. Tyneside is probably one of the most viable shipbuilding and ship-repairing areas in the United Kingdom. I have not received any letter from an employer or worker in my constituency urging me to oppose the Bill. All of them, as far as I know, want the Bill and I am glad that we intend to stay here long enough to ensure that in the next Session—even though we have been thwarted by the Opposition—we shall get the Bill. I am prepared to bet on that.

Mr. Anthony Berry: I have been close to the Bill in the last months and I must express my utter disgust at the way in which the Government are leaving the industry in a state of such confusion and doubt. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) for the way in which he has led our team. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) upon whom much of the work fell throughout the passage of the Bill. He, too, has done a good job, and I compliment him. It was a team effort, and we worked together in Committee. With the hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and Come Valley (Mr. Wainwright) we were united against the Bill. Since then we have gained the support of the Ulster Unionists and Plaid Cymru.
The Government like to call in support the figures which show that they received 11½ million votes in the last election, but those hon. Members who are opposed to the Bill received about 17½ million votes. Did the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire) include a pledge to nationalise the ship-repair industry in his election address?

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): I have respect for the hon. Member. We spent 58 happy Sittings together. But if the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire) had turned our majority of one into the Opposition's majority of one, the lion. Member for

Southgate (Mr. Berry) would regard his right to vote as legitimate.

Mr. Berry: The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone would not have expressed a view either way in his manifesto and he is therefore free to vote with a clear conscience. But the Minister claims that all hon. Members on his side of the House expressed their support for the nationalisation of ship repairing in their manifestos. That is not the case.
The House of Lords has acted again in the true interests of the majority of people. If hon. Members do not believe that, they should examine recent events. There have been three by-elections and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) claimed that he achieved a great victory. He has an odd idea of victory. A recent Gallup Poll shows that we have a lead of 25 per cent. That is considerable. There are also the local by-elections which clearly represent the views of the electorate. Just a mile from the Chamber, Lambeth's solid Labour support fell from 70 per cent. at the last election to below 50 per cent. last week. That is a remarkable fall.

Mr. Kaufman: Did the Conservative candidate in that by-election fight it on the ship-repair issue?

Mr. Berry: I think not.

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Berry: I shall give way later, but first I must answer the Minister of State. Since voters in the conurbations tend to vote the same way, the Minister of State might reflect that in Lambeth the swing to the Conservatives was 14·3 per cent. and he would lose his seat if the swing at Manchester, Ardwick was 12·1 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Grocott.

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry—Mr. Heffer.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) referred to Lambeth, but has he not heard of the result in Lancaster—a solid Tory area for some years—where the Labour Party candidate received solid support? One example cancels out the other.

Mr. Berry: That does not really matter. The hon. Member makes a fair point, and we can all quote examples. deliberately used Lambeth as an example because I hoped that the Minister would rise to it, and he did.
Mr. Jack Jones has suggested that the Prime Minister should appoint 50 life peers. Such a list would surely include the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart), the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), all of whom have given great service to the country. If they were made life peers, we should have by-elections which could be fought on the nationalisation of these industries. But the Minister of State cannot be sure of how people would vote.
It would be fascinating for students of political history if Labour lost its majority in this House and achieved a majority in the House of Lords at a stroke. Is the Minister of State sure that his right hon. Friends, having been freed from the bond of patronage, would vote in the way in which they voted in this House? Might they not follow Lord George-Brown or Lord Shinwell? Whatever the criticism of Lord Shinwell by Government Members, he is a patriot and in recent weeks he has voted in the way he felt best for the country.
The delay in the Bill and the delay last summer following the May vote was caused deliberately by the Government. Bristol Channel Ship Repairers has constantly opposed the Bill. It and other ship builders and repairers—and we must not forget that other companies are included in the Bill—have opposed the measure. This morning I met shop stewards of the Bristol Channel company who told me of their great regret—they used stronger words—at the Secretary of State's speech in the House the other evening.
We understand that the Bill will come forward again in the next Session, thereby continuing the great uncertainty in these industries. I deplore the way in which the Government have treated them. I remember the Ports Bill in 1970. There was a General Election and we won.
The Government's action towards the workers in these industries will have the

same result next year. They will be solely to blame for the harm that they have done to the industry in the meantime.

Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott). I made a mistake when I called him earlier when I intended to call the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Not only on Merseyside but throughout the ship repair industry, workers will welcome the Government's insistence that the Bill will go through. Conservative Members who talk glibly about the industry fail to recognise that the decision taken by the other place today is cynical and ruthless. The industry has been in the doldrums for many years, since long before the question of public ownership was raised by the Government.
The Opposition argue that the Government should merely take powers under existing authority to provide the necessary capital for the industries covered by the Bill. The Government have already done that for the ship repair industry. The consequences of their feeding tremendous resources into it is not that it has been sustained and that job opportunities have been increased; the opposite is true. They have been going further and further down the spiral, and job opportunities have been decreasing. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has pointed out that where there were once 20,000 people employed in ship repair on Merseyside the figure is now down to 3,000-plus.
The story does not end there. We need the industry in the area. We have had close consultation with workers in it, who are hanging on by the skin of their teeth, hoping that the Bill will go through so that they will know the future of their industry. By again overturning a decision of this House, the other place has taken a cynical attitude towards the workers. Their Lordships should take into account the fact that the ship repair industry does not consist of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers alone. Those who argue for the exclusion of that company should think of the industry as a whole. If the company is so effective


and efficient, it will have a massive contribution to make to the new nationalised ship repair industry. The Bill should be welcomed as providing a far broader base for the industry and a far brighter future.
The trade unions in the industry have long been in favour of its nationalisation. This has been made clear in policy statements of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions. Duly elected delegates have said at conferences that they supported public ownership of their industry. That is why I believe that there will be a welcome for the Government's statement that they insist on going ahead with the Bill. The House should be unanimous in condemning the attitude of their Lordships towards an industry that has been waiting for a long time to have its future determined.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I was very disappointed by the Minister's speech. Many of his remarks were questionable and some were discreditable. He said that only the Tory Peers had turned down the Bill. He must have known that that was inaccurate. Then it came out that Lord Shinwell had voted against the Bill. But it should be noted that no fewer than 16 Liberal peers and 27 Cross-Benchers voted against. None of those 44 can be described as Tory peers.

Mr. Peter Emery: For the sake of greater accuracy, I have been to the other place to obtain the voting lists, and I have analysed the results according to the way in which their Lordships record themselves in Vacher's. Only 94 take the Conservative Whip, 16 take the Liberal Whip, 87 take no Whip or are Cross-Benchers, one is Labour, and six describe themselves as Independent.

Mr. Burden: That puts the whole matter in perspective and shows how discreditable was the Minister's statement.
Many hon. Members have the illusion that public control of the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry will ensure that all those working in it will retain their jobs.

Mr. Fernyhough: Jarrow.

Mr. Burden: I remember Jarrow, and I remember that in 1931, in an extra-

ordinary way, its people returned a Conservative Member. That was an illustration of how they felt about the then Labour Government, which was comparable to how many people feel about the present Government.
When I asked the Prime Minister what would happen to the shipyards and what the Government would do to ensure work in them, he said that there would be rationalisation. Rationalisation of an industry almost inevitably means that fewer people, not more, will be employed in it.
I also asked the Prime Minister whether the Government, when they had taken over the shipbuilding industry, would be prepared to give the necessary orders for ships to keep the yards open, in view of the shortage of orders in the world today. He said "You will have to wait and see what we do about that". I repeat that question to the Government now. If orders cannot be obtained elsewhere, will the Government order ships to keep the yards open and the workers busy? If they do, what will they do with the ships? Will they go to the International Monetary Fund or foreign lenders to borrow the money to order the ships?
I am also concerned about the way in which the Government intend to keep all the nationalised ship repair yards open and in full employment, as they say they hope to do. If the ships are not being built, there will not be so many needing repair. Can the Government give an undertaking that there will be a flow of ships as is necessary to keep the yards fully employed in ship building and repairing and keep the people already employed in them fully employed?
5.30 p.m. 
A personal interest that I must declare lies in Chatham Dockyard and the Royal naval dockyards. What will happen to the Royal naval dockyards, which are almost entirely engaged in ship repair and refit? In the past they have been in a unique position. They have given fleet support and have been highly specialised, but what is to be their position? How are the Government to treat them? Will they treat them differently from the other ship repair yards, or will they say that the Royal naval dockyards, as ship repair yards, must be treated in the way of all others? Will some of the frigates


that now go to the Royal naval dockyards be sent to ship repair yards that have never done naval ship repairing in the past? That is a question of concern to all those who are interested in the naval dockyards. 
Will the Minister give an absolute undertaking—I hope that he will listen—and a categorical promise that no type of ship that now goes to the naval dockyards for repair and refit will in future be sent to the other shipyards, private yards included, that are now being taken over, or will be taken over, by the Government? The dockyard workers are entitled to know. As I represent a dockyard town, I wish to know. 
Perhaps the most important question—perhaps the Minister of State will listen—is what will happen in the yards after public ownership. When the Government have nationalised the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries, will they keep the orders flowing in to ensure that all the people at present working in the industries are retained in employment in the firms in which they are now serving? I am sure that that is a question to which many Labour Members, as well as Conservative Members, want to know the answer. 
We are told that public ownership will bring great benefit to the shipbuilding industry and its workers. That has to be proved. I have never seen any great benefit to the workers in any publicly-owned industry unless they have been kept fully employed. The public do not benefit unless those industries can produce the goods at the right time, at the right place and on the right delivery. We are not alone involved in what happens in this industry. Its success will depend upon how it can compete on these issues with the rest of the world.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall be grateful if hon. Members make brief speeches.

Mr. Wigley: I shall speak briefly. Although we are debating an amendment that relates specifically to the ship repairing industry, the consequence of the vote will be whether the whole Bill goes forward. It is a vote that will have a severe effect on the aircraft and shipbuilding industries.
We now see an interesting reversal of positions. The Government are pressing for the House to reject the amendment, with the consequence that the Bill will be lost. It is probable that after the Stechford by-election shortly after Christmas there will be little possibility of its getting on the statute book. On the other side of the coin, the Conservative Party is pressing the House to accept the amendment. It wants the amendment carried and ship repairing to be taken from the Bill. As a result, the nationalisation of both the aircraft and shipbuilding industries would go forward. As I say, that is an interesting reversal of rôles.
It could well be that many Labour Members for whom I have great respect, and who have great knowledge of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries, will rue what took place on this date. This may be the date on which the Bill was finally lost. It may well be that in February and March next year, when the new Bill is brought forward in the next Session, it will fail to reach the statute book because of one or two by-elections.
It may well be that Labour Members who represent shipbuilding and aircraft areas will have constituents asking them "Why did you insist on the small and pedantic amendment on ship repairing, thereby jeopardising the whole of the Bill?" Given their convictions and the depth with which they hold them, the only answer for the industries is nationalisation. I find it stunning that Labour Members are willing to jeopardise all that and to throw it overboard for the sake of possibly four or five ship repairing companies. I know that there are 12 in the Bill, but it is probable that only four or five would go forward if the two Houses entered into a compromise that would let everyone off the hook.
Why have the Government taken this line? It must be that there is great pressure on them from various directions. We speculated about the nature of this pressure last week. Why do they now want to lose the Bill? In the past few days the information has come to my ears—

Mr. Roger Stott: Do not be so silly.

Mr. Wigley: Labour Members are reacting fiercely, and that tells a story.
In the past few days the story has come to my ears that a shipbuilding company that is not in Wales—in fact, there is none in Wales—is so near going to the wall that it will probably collapse in the early part of next year. It seems that the Government want to see that company collapse before the Bill is enacted. They will then be able to say "That is what happens when a shipbuilding company remains in private control." On the other hand, if the Bill had been enacted and the company had still collapsed because British Shipbuilders were not able to sustain it, people would say "That is the effect of nationalisation."
The Government are playing with politics. They are playing with people's jobs, livelihoods and futures. I suggest that Labour Members search their hearts deeply before they vote. Their vote tonight in favour of the Government may be the vote that loses them the Bill.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) has shown how he has missed the point completely by describing the ship repairers as presenting a pedantic little issue. He has missed the point because the debate has reached the stage of not being about the ship repairers. It is not about the nationalisation of the industries, crucial and important as that measure remains. For those who can see the wood from the trees and who have some sort of historical perception in these matters, this is a constitutional debate about the relationship between the two Houses. The votes that are registered tonight will be judged largely in terms of their constitutional implications.
I shall be intensely interested in the way in which the Liberals vote. Clearly they do not have that degree of interest, judging by the emptiness of the Liberal Bench. The constitutional issue is whether another place should throw out the clearly expressed view of this place. That on its own is only part of the story. The fact is that when Labour or Liberal Governments are in majority control in this place the attitude is taken in another place—

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: rose—

Mr. Grocott: No, I am not giving way in the early part of my speech. There is still about an hour and a half to go.
If we had a situation where relationships between the two Houses were such that we knew that in another place there would be measured consideration of what had taken place in this place, if we had a situation in which we knew that another place, with due care and deliberation, would throw out the parts of Bills that it thought were hastily and ill-conceived and pass those pieces that it considered acceptable, and if we knew that it would do that consistently all the time with all parties, perhaps some people would be prepared to accept a second Chamber. I should not, but maybe that would be a reasonable point of view.
How long can any party such as the Labour Party—and the Liberal Party in its heyday—remain in a position in which in a game of football its goal is much bigger than that of its opponents and where the rules are different for both sides? We all know that in previous years when crucial political issues have been canvassed under a Tory Government, there was no question of the House of Lords revising or rejecting the measures so introduced. The House of Lords did not reject the Housing Finance Bill, the Industrial Relations Bill, or any of the measures relating to the Community.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will Labour Members get the situation in perspective? The House of Lords has not killed the Bill but has only amended it. Furthermore, in past years the House of Lords has amended Bills introduced by Tory Governments. Surely the present amendment should be acceptable to Labour Members. If not, they are killing their own Bill.

Mr. Grocott: The hon. Gentleman well knows that this is a wrecking amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If during consideration of the Housing Finance Bill the House of Lords had decided "We shall make this Bill apply only to county boroughs and not to districts", would Tory Members have taken the view "We have a great deal of what we wanted, and that will suffice"? Would they have taken the view that the Labour majority in the other place—because that is what would have to happen in my hypothetical example—had taken a balanced and reasonable view and that therefore they would accept only a proportion of the provisions of their Bill? Of coure they would not. They would have taken the


view that a political majority in another place was seeking to damage the Government.

Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman said that in such a case there would have to be a Labour majority in another place, but that would not necessarily have to be the case. A considerable number of Cross-Bench peers and others voted against the Government today. Therefore on other occasions they could well support a Labour Government.

Mr. Grocott: The hon. Gentleman is only varying the theme which he has already spent 20 minutes developing. He intervenes on precisely the same issue.

Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to my speech.

Mr. Grocott: It was not an issue in the first place. The decision could have been reached by Tory votes, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. If there was a bonus in terms of alleged Cross-Benchers' votes, all well and good, but that type of argument is worthless.
If the rôles were reversed and instead of a massive Tory majority in the other place there were a massive Labour majority, would the Tories be as tolerant as we have been? When one reads the Daily Telegraph—a chore which I usually manage to avoid—one gains the strong impression that it is the Labour Party that is intolerant, but when one examines the history of the Labour Party over a period of 70 years, one can only conclude that it has allowed the peculiar second Chamber to continue to use its majority against Labour's plans. It has allowed political opponents in the other place to defeat its aims. I can think of no other party that would allow that to happen. Therefore, it is Labour which is the tolerant party.
The Opposition have got themselves in an indefensible position. That is why they develop such phoney constitutional arguments when seeking to justify their position. They constantly claim that the Labour Government have no mandate because we gained only 39 per cent. of the vote at the last General Election. But there has been no Government since the war which have enjoyed 50 per cent. of the votes at a General Election. Have the Tories ever doubted their right to

govern when they have been in control? Of course they have not.
5.45 p.m.
On the question of percentage votes as a crucial factor, one might ask what percentage of the electorate voted for the House of Lords. One of the Members of the other place, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who wants to reject the Bill, was decisively rejected by the electorate in October 1974. That seems a strange state of affairs. The people of Peterborough might wonder what was the point of having a General Election in Peterborough and of kicking out the then Member, only to find that he pops up again in the other place and helps the Lords there to throw out a provision put forward by the democratically-elected Chamber. That makes nonsense of any constitutional arrangement.
The other well-known political argument that is trotted out time and again is that the opinion in the country has changed following the results in a number of by-elections. How much longer are we to hear about those results? It is said that the Government must dramatically change their policies.
In May 1971—I was not here at the time—I worked pretty hard at a by-election in Bromsgrove. On that occasion a massive Tory majority—and that seat was much safer than Workington was for Labour—was turned into a healthy Labour majority. Was the unanimous view on the Tory Benches at that time, only 11 months after the June 1970 General Election "The view in the country has changed. Therefore, we must take account of it and scrap the Housing Finance Bill, because obviously we do not have a mandate for it. We must also scrap the Industrial Relations Bill and reconsider the terms on which we entered the Common Market"? Of course they did not, and Tory Members know that their argument is totally phoney. They know that it is quite wrong within a year or two of any Government being elected to characterise by-election results as suggesting that the Government in power no longer have a mandate. I hope that they will not use that argument again.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: rose—

Mr. Grocott: I should like to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I have not


time. I can only say that the hon. Gentleman made one statement from the Liberal Benches that must have caused Gladstone to turn in his grave. The hon. Gentleman said that there was no real difference between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. He said that both Houses were undemocratic because we were elected on a first-past-the-post system. That is the kind of phoney constitutional argument that comes up time and again.
I hope that the Government Front Bench will not deal with the House of Lords on the basis of crisis management, as they have so far. I hope they will take the view that the only sensible way of dealing with the matter is to regard a second Chamber as entirely superfluous and unnecessary. Nobody suggests that there should be a second Chamber in the Assemblies in Scotland or Wales, or for any European Assembly. Nobody suggests that there should be a second Chamber for any council in this country. The second Chamber is irrelevant. About 100 years ago, Walter Bagehot—by no means a radical or Socialist—said that the cure for anybody who admired the House of Lords was to go to watch it. It costs £3 million a year to run. I hope that the IMF does not put too stringent terms to us, but if it wants candidates for scrapping, my vote would go for the scrapping of the other place. That is the way we should proceed.
The Labour Party has been far too tolerant for far too long. Let us establish a single Chamber system and abolish the Upper House. Let us have no more of this nonsensical situation.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: In a fiery speech the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott) said that the Labour Party had for far too long been far too tolerant of the House of Lords. Of course it has. Any self-respecting reforming party would have got rid of it years ago. It is the fate of Labour Governments to allow institutions of government to moulder. It is one of the examples of the way in which Britain has become antiquated over the years. The House of Lords is a non-elected Chamber, it manages to go on from year to year, and it is allowed to exist by members of a so-called reforming party of the Left. My party would be happy to sup-

port not only the abolition of the House of Lords but the abolition of the peers as well. It is time that recognition of these antediluvian titles was removed by the State.
This is a brief debate, but it has exposed a degree of hypocrisy that I have rarely encountered in this House—and that is saying something. Throughout the time when we have considered this Bill—for 140 or so hours in Committee and on the Floor of the House—the Government have told us that there is an emergency in shipbuilding and that the industry requires urgent nationalisation. In the course of these debates it was not infrequently pointed out to the Government that nationalisation was not necessarily the answer to the problems of the shipbuilding industry. It was agreed on all sides that a shipbuilding policy was necessary. The same was true, to a degree, of the aircraft industry.
We have had statements from the Government to the effect that there is an urgent need to take both these industries into public control. Yet we have now come to the "hint" end—as we call it—of the Session, when all measures that have not been promulgated and passed must fall and the Government have a choice. They have to decide whether to allow progress on the nationalisation of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. The House of Lords is not blocking that. It has pulled back from that opposition. It has left the matter in the hands of the Government and individual Labour Members. It is they who must decide whether these two industries are to be taken over.
If the Government are beaten tonight the two industries will be taken over. If the Government win the Division this Bill will fall. If it does fall it will not be an unimportant event, because the Government have made it clear that should the Bill fall they do not intend to provide any more public money or other support for the aircraft and shipbuilding industries until they can secure their ideological goal of nationalisation. The Government have put it on record that they are prepared to sacrifice men's jobs for the sake of their ideology. They would have had my respect if they had said that they sincerely believed that nationalisation was the way to safeguard the industries. They have the answer tonight.


They can allow these two industries to go into nationalisation.
I do not recollect that during the long debates in Committee much was said about the urgency of taking ship repairing into immediate public ownership. A lot was said about whether it should be taken into public ownership, just as a lot was said about the need to take over the shipbuilding and aircraft industries. Now these two industries are to be sacrificed in this battle over ship repairing between the Lords and the Commons. The Government have their answer. They can put forward two-thirds or three-quarters of their Bill, and in the next Session take over the ship repairing industry—if they can find the majority to do so. But they are running the risk that if they do not follow the course of action I suggest they may not get a majority in the next Session to ensure the passage of the Bill. Their strategy will then be in ruins.

Mr. David Lambie: Will the hon. Member say that when this Bill is re-introduced in the next Session he and his 10 colleagues will support it, thereby giving the Government a majority of 22?

Mr. Wilson: We have told the Minister time and again that he would have our support for a reasonable policy for the shipbuilding and aircraft industries. We have pointed out the dangers that would be encountered with nationalisation. We gave Ministers the opportunity—we were criticised by the Conservatives for doing so—to give a Scottish dimension to these two industries and safeguard jobs. The Government refused to give in on both counts. That is still their attitude. In those circumstances, harsh experience dictates to us in Scotland that centralised control, even with the amendment to Clause 5 which was eventually produced, would mean a severe loss of jobs. We know that 30 per cent. of shipbuilding jobs are likely to be sacrificed by the shipbuilding corporation, if it comes into existence.
These are the criteria that the Government should be following. They have followed them in the past. They have said that jobs are important. Now they say that jobs are unimportant when set

against the method by which they intend to take these industries into control. It is essential that if the Government are to hold to their responsibilities, as they see them, to the working men who put them into power, they should not seek to abandon the shipbuilding and aircraft industries regardless. If the Government follow the middle course which they are putting forward, of pressing on with nationalisation, which may never come to pass, and do not take advantage of the opportunity that they have now to put these industries into public ownership, and if, in the meantime, there is no policy for shipbuilding or for the aircraft industry and no injection of public money, they will be following the worst possible course.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: In his opening speech the Secretary of State said that when the Government reintroduced this Bill there would be the same compensation terms and the same dates. He had, perhaps conveniently, forgotten that if those were changed he would not be able to get the Bill through under the Parliament Act and the other place would be able to debate and amend it. The right hon. Gentleman was, therefore, making a virtue out of a necessity. His right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) hoped that changes would be made. If he had bothered to look at the Parliament Act he would have known that that would do the Government no good.
This measure is a typical example of the nonsense that is spoken about a Government of national unity. How can any Conservative Member contemplate such a Government when the Labour Government persist in putting forward measures that have virtually no support in the country? Those who dream of a Government of national unity are those out of office and those who have a tenuous link with the City. Neither is in touch with the needs of the country.
Most of those who have spoken so far have taken part in the earlier debates on this Bill. I speak as a Back Bench Member who has read all of the debates and who has listened to some. We must realise that the Government have already begun a massive propaganda exercise. We read on Friday that if the Bill did not get


through, it would be the fault of the House of Lords. That is the first terminological inexactitude from the Government. The facts are plain. The incompetence of the Leader of the House made this Bill come on so very late. The petulance of the Secretary of State means that the amendment excluding ship repairing cannot be accepted by the Government. It is the right hon. Gentleman who takes responsibility for sacrificing the jobs of so many people—just because he is not prepared to take the three-quarters of the loaf which he is offered.
Every bit of the Government's propaganda machine will be used to show where it is alleged the blame lies. Every union journal will be used. But all of those statements will be utterly and completely false.
If the Government had any sincerity they would admit that no jobs need be lost if they would say, even now, that they would accept the latest message from the other place and would introduce a Bill in the next Session to nationalise the ship-repairing industry. Let them say at this stage that they are prepared to go along with what has been done and will take three-quarters of the loaf. If they do not say that, they must accept responsibility for the loss of jobs and for the possibility, as the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) said, that they will not get their Bill in the next

Session, because it is most unlikely that they will get a majority in the House for any measure of this sort.

6.0 p.m.

The Secretary of State, in his opening speech, made much reference to what the House of Lords had done. Succeeding Members referred to Tory peers. It would be fascinating to analyse the voting record, nay the attendance record, of the Huyton creations, none of whom could be called a Conservative. It would be fascinating to look at the voting and attendance records of the political secretary who now decorates the Upper House.

Let us get away from the cant and humbug that the Secretary of State introduced. Members of the House of Lords are exercising the powers which the Labour Government gave them in the 1940s and 1950s. If they do not use it, they should be criticised. They are using it. The only people to be criticised who have thrown away the chance of the nationalisation of the shipbuilding and aircraft industries are the Government and the Labour Party.

Question put, That this House doth insist on its disagreement with the Lords in the amendments on which the Lords insist:—

The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 268.

Division No. 432.]
AYES
[6.1 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Campbell, Ian
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Allaun, Frank
Cenavan, Dennis
de Freltas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Anderson, Donald
Cant, R. B.
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund


Archer, Peter
Carmichael, Nell
Dempsey, James


Armstrong, Ernest
Cartwright, John
Doig, Peter


Ashley, Jack
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Dormand, J. D.


Ashton, Joe
Clemitson, Ivor
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Dunn, James A.


Atkinson, Norman
Cohen, Stanley
Dunnett, Jack


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Coleman, Donald
Edge, Geoff


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Concannon, J. D.
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Bates, Alf
Conlan, Bernard
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
English, Michael


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Corbett, Robin
Ennals, David


Bidwell, Sydney
Cowans, Harry
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Bishop, E. S.
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Boardman, H.
Crawshaw, Richard
Faulds, Andrew


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cronin, John
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)


Bradley, Tom
Cryer, Bob
Flannery, Martin


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Fletcher, L. R. (Iikeston)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Davidson, Arthur
Ford, Ben


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Forrester, John


Buchan, Norman
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Buchanan, Richard
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Freeson, Reginald


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Deakins, Eric
Garrett, John (Norwich S)




Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
McElhone, Frank
Sandelson, Neville


George, Bruce
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Sedgemore, Brian


Gilbert, Dr John
MacKenzie, Gregor
Selby, Harry


Ginsburg, David
Mackintosh, John P.
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Golding, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Gould, Bryan
McNamara, Kevin
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Gourlay, Harry
Madden, Max
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Graham, Ted
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Sillars, James


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mahon, Simon
Silverman, Julius


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Skinner, Dennis


Grocott, Bruce
Marks, Kenneth
Small, William


Hardy, Peter
Marquand, David
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Snape, Peter


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Spearing, Nigel


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Maynard, Miss Joan
Spriggs, Leslie


Hatton, Frank
Meacher, Michael
Stallard, A. W.


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Stoddart, David


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Mendelson, John
Stott, Roger


Heffer, Eric S.
Mikardo, Ian
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Hooley, Frank
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Horam, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Swain, Thomas


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Moonman, Eric
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Huckfield, Les
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Newens, Stanley
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Hunter, Adam
Noble, Mike
Tierney, Sydney


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Oakes, Gordon
Tinn, James


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Ogden, Eric
Tomlinson, John


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
O'Halloran, Michael
Tomney, Frank


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Orbach, Maurice
Torney, Tom


Janner, Greville
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tuck, Raphael


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ovenden, John
Urwin, T. W.


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


John, Brynmor
Padley, Walter
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Palmer, Arthur
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Park, George
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Parker, John
Watkins, David


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Parry, Robert
Watkinson, John


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pavitt, Laurie
Weetch, Ken


Judd, Frank
Pendry, Tom
Weitzman, David


Kaufman, Gerald
Perry, Ernest
Wellbeloved, James


Kelley, Richard
Phipps, Dr Colin
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
White, James (Pollok)


Kinnock, Neil
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Whitehead, Phillip


Lambie, David
Price, William (Rugby)
Whitlock, William


Lamborn, Harry
Radice, Giles
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Lamond, James
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Lee, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Robinson, Geoffrey
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Lipton, Marcus
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Litterick, Tom
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Woodall. Alec


Lomas, Kenneth
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Woof, Robert


Loyden, Eddie
Rooker, J. W.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Luard, Evan
Roper, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Rose, Paul B.



Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mabon, Dr J Dickson
Rowlands, Ted
Mr. James Hamilton and


McCartney, Hugh
Ryman, John
Mr. Joseph Harper.


McDonald, Dr Oonagh






NOES


Adley, Robert
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Clark, William (Croydon S)


Aitken, Jonathan
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Alison, Michael
Bradford, Rev Robert
Clegg, Walter


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Braine, Sir Bernard
Cockcroft, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Brittan, Leon
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)


Awdry, Daniel
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Cope, John


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Brotherton, Michael
Cordle, John H.


Baker, Kenneth
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cormack, Patrick


Banks, Robert
Bryan, Sir Paul
Corrie, John


Beith, A. J.
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Costain, A. P.


Bell, Ronald
Buck, Antony
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Budgen, Nick
Crawford, Douglas


Benyon,W.
Bulmer, Esmond
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Burden, F. A.
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)


Biffen, John
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey


Biggs-Davison, John
Carlisle, Mark
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Blaker, Peter
Carson, John
Drayson, Burnaby


Body, Richard
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Churchill, W. S.
Dunlop, John


Bottomley, Peter
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John







Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rathbone, Tim


Elliott, Sir William
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Emery, Peter
Kershaw, Anthony
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Kilfedder, James
Reid, George


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Kimball, Marcus
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Eyre, Reginald
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ridsdale, Julian


Fairbairn, Nicholas
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fairgrieve, Russell
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Farr, John
Knox, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Fell, Anthony
Lamont, Norman
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lawson, Nigel
Royle, Sir Anthony


Forman, Nigel
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sainsbury, Tim


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fox, Marcus
Lloyd, Ian
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Loveridge, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Freud, Clement
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shepherd, Colin


Fry, Peter
MacCormick, lain
Shersby, Michael


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
McCrindle, Robert
Silvester, Fred


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McCusker, H.
Sims, Roger


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Macfarlane, Neil
Sinclair, Sir George


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
MacGregor, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Glyn, Dr Alan
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Speed, Keith


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Spence, John


Goodhart, Philip
Madel, David
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Goodhew, Victor
Marten, Neil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Goodlad, Alastair
Mates, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gorst, John
Mather, Carol
Stanley, John


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Maude, Angus
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Maudling. Rt Hon Reginald
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mawby, Ray
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Gray, Hamish
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Grieve, Percy
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stokes, John


Griffiths, Eldon
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Tapsell, Peter


Grist, Ian
Mills, Peter
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Grylls, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Hall, Sir John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tebbit, Norman


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Moate, Roger
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Molyneaux, James
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Monro, Hector
Thompson, George


Hannam, John
Montgomery, Fergus
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Trotter, Neville


Hastings, Stephen
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Tugendhat, Christopher


Havers, Sir Michael
Morris. Michael (Northampton S)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hawkins, Paul
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Hayhoe, Barney
Mudd, David
Viggers, Peter


Henderson, Douglas
Neave, Airey
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Heseltine, Michael
Nelson, Anthony
Wakeham, John


Hicks, Robert
Neubert, Michael
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Higgins, Terence L.
Newton, Tony
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Hodgson, Robin
Onslow, Cranley
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Holland, Philip
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Wall, Patrick


Hordern, Peter
Osborn, John
Warren, Kenneth


Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, John (Harrow West)
Weatherill, Bernard


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Wells, John


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, Richard (Workington)
Welsh, Andrew


Hunt, John (Bromley)
pardoe, John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Hurd, Douglas
Parkinson, Cecil
Wigley, Dafydd


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pattie, Geoffrey
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Penhaligon, David
Winterton, Nicholas


James, David
Percival, Ian
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Younger, Hon George


Jessel, Toby
Pink, R. Bonner



Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Jopling, Michael
Prior, Rt Hon James
Mr. Michael Roberts.


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Raison, Timothy

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question,
That this House doth insist on its amendments made in lieu.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

put and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question,
That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for insisting on amendments proposed by the

Commons in lieu of certain amendments on which the Lords have insisted to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill—[Mr. Kaufman.]

put forthwith pursuant to order [10th November], and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question,
That Mr. Anthony Berry, Mr. Les Huckfield, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Mr. Tom King and Mr.


Tom Pendry be members of the Committee—[Mr. Kaufman.]

put forthwith, pursuant to the Order [10th November], and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question.
That three be the quorum of the Committee. [Mr. Kaufman.]

put forthwith, pursuant to the Order [10th November], and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question,
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

put forthwith, pursuant to the Order [10th November], and agreed to.

Reason for insisting on Commons amendments in lieu of Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Mr. Speaker: The House is suspended for fifteen minutes.

6.18 p.m.

Sitting suspended.

Sitting resumed—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that it is necessary for the House to wait for a further 10 minutes. I therefore suspend the sitting for a further 10 minutes.

6.33 p.m.

Sitting suspended.

Sitting resumed—

ROYAL ASSENT

6.50 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners; The House went:—and, having returned:

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker (in the Clerk's place at the Table): I have to acquaint the House that the House has been to the House of Peers where a Commission under the Great Seal was read, authorising the Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measure:

1. Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976
2. Industry (Amendment) Act 1976
3.Race Relations Act 1976

4. Development of Rural Wales Act 1976
5. Energy Act 1976
6. Weights and Measures &amp;c. Act 1976
7. Industrial Common Ownership Act 1976
8. Dock Work Regulation Act 1976.
9. Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976
10. Education Act 1976
11. Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976
12. Health Services Act 1976
13. Tyne and Wear Act 1976
14. London Transport Act 1976

And to the following Measure, passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919:

Endowments and Glebe Measure 1976

PROROGATION

HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH

Mr. Speaker: I have further to acquaint the House that the Lord High Chancellor, one of the High Commissioners, delivered Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, in pursuance of Her Majesty's Command, as follows:

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons

It was with great pleasure that My Husband and I visited Finland; the United States of America, where we welcomed the opportunity to join the people of the United States in the celebration of their bicentennial anniversary; Canada, where I opened the Olympic Games; and recently Luxembourg. We were very pleased to welcome President Geisel of Brazil and President Giscard d'Estaing of France on State Visits to this country.

My Government welcomed the independence of Seychelles and their decision to join the Commonwealth.

My Government have participated throughout the year in international efforts to promote a more just world economic order.

My Government have continued to make their contribution to the development of detente between East and West, and to work for the improvement of bilateral relations and economic co-operation with the Soviet Union and other countries of Eastern Europe. My Government have worked for force reductions in Central Europe and the prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons. They have tabled a draft convention in Geneva on the prohibition of chemical weapons.

My Government have continued their efforts to promote a negotiated settlement in Rhodesia based on acceptance of early transition to majority rule.

My Armed Forces and the Royal Ulster Constabulary continue to perform with distinction their difficult and dangerous task in Northern Ireland. Steps have been taken to strengthen the role of the police and their effectiveness in maintaining the rule of law, and to make the parliamentary procedures for the government of Northern Ireland more effective. The Fair Employment Act has been passed, which promotes equality of opportunity in employment for people of different religious beliefs; a Northern Ireland Development Agency has been set up; and the law on industrial relations has been brought more closely into line with that of Great Britain.

My Government have continued to co-operate with the Government of the Republic of Ireland on security, and reciprocal legislation in both countries has been brought into effect to deal with fugitive offenders.

Members of the House of Commons

I thank you for the provision which you have made for the honour and dignity of the Crown and for the public services.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons

My Government continued to give priority to reducing inflation. Following the success of the £6 pay policy, they agreed with the Trades Union Congress a further round of voluntary pay restraint. The Price Code was amended to encourage the expansion of industrial investment and of employ-

ment. Grants were made for the setting up of more consumer advice centres and for providing consumers with information about prices.

My Government have been deeply concerned about the high level of unemployment which we in common with most other countries have experienced; practical measures designed to alleviate the situation and to help meet the need for skilled manpower have been taken.

Legislation was enacted to remove unsatisfactory features of the Industrial Relations Act 1971.

My Government have sought to stimulate industrial regeneration, through the development of an industrial strategy with the close involvement of both sides of industry, through the work of the National Enterprise Board and the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Development Agencies, and by initiating discussion of planning agreements with major companies.

Legislation has been passed to reconstitute the National Dock Labour Board and to make further provision for regulating the allocation and performance of the work of cargo-handling.

Legislation has been passed to meet the United Kingdotn's obligations under the International Energy Programme and European Economic Community obligations on energy supply and use; to control energy supplies in a domestic energy emergency; and to regulate the use of energy for the purposes of conservation.

The British National Oil Corporation has been established and has taken over the National Coal Board's Continental Shelf assets and purchased substantial interests in Burmah's North Sea holdings, including shares in the Ninian and Thistle oilfields. Participation agreements have been concluded with the Gulf, Conoco, Tricentrol and Ranger oil companies. Negotiations with other companies are proceeding.

My Government have continued to foster the development of our offshore petroleum resources. Following a recent invitation, 53 applications have been received and are now being considered for further licences for the exploration and development of offshore oil and


gas, in which majority State participation will be a precondition.

Acts have been passed to improve the law relating to companies and to insolvency.

My Government have published a White Paper and a Supplementary Statement setting out their detailed proposals for the establishment of Scottish and Welsh Assemblies.

My Government have continued to work for improvements in the operation of the Common Agricultural Policy.

Legislation for England and Wales has been passed to strengthen the legal safeguards for farm tenants and their families, and to end the tied cottage system in agriculture.

My Ministers have placed special emphasis on areas of acute housing need in the public expenditure programme, and have continued to encourage new building for owner occupation.

Legislation has been passed to facilitate the transfer of housing from New Town Development Corporations and the Commission for the New Towns to elected local authorities in England and Wales.

An Act has been passed to give water authorities in England and Wales more effective powers to deal with drought.

In pursuance of My Government's comprehensive policy for development land, legislation for a development land tax was enacted.

Provision has been made for increases in social security benefits and war pensions; and new cash benefits have been introduced to help disabled people. Provision has also been made for the child benefit scheme to start on 4th April 1977.

An Act has been passed to secure the progressive withdrawal from National Health Service hospitals of facilities for private medical and dental practice and to control development of large private hospitals. A Royal Commission has been established to consider the best use and management of the resources of the National Health Service in the interests of the patients and those who work in it.

Legislation has been passed under which local education authorities in England and Wales may be required to submit proposals to abolish selection in secondary education.

My Government have announced their intention to establish a Committee to inquire into the rôle and functioning of financial institutions in the United Kingdom, and have published proposals for strengthening and extending the system for supervision of banks and other deposit taking institutions. Acts were passed to transform the Trustee Savings Bank, to widen its banking services and to extend the facilities provided by the National Giro.

The law on racial discrimination has been strengthened

An Act has been passed providing for the establishment of a Police Corn-plaints Board to introduce an independent element into the procedure for handling complaints by members of the public against the police in England and Wales.

A measure was passed to repeal and re-enact with amendments the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974.

An Act has been passed to improve the law relating to bail in England and Wales.

Royal Commissions have been established to inquire into the provision of legal services. In the meantime, My Government have continued their support for the provision of legal services to those who need them most.

Further progress has been made with the reform of the law and the improvement of the statute book by consolidation and the repeal of obsolete enactments.

Acts have been passed to reform and improve the law of Scotland, including the law relating to liquor licensing, crofting tenure, freshwater fisheries, education and fatal accident inquiries.

An Act has been passed to give greater impetus to the measures already being taken to stimulate the social and economic development of rural Wales.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons

I pray that the blessings of Almighty God may attend you.

Then a Commission for proroguing the Parliament was read; after which the Lord Chancellor said:
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:
By virtue of Her Majesty's Commission under the Great Seal, to us and other Lords directed, we do, in Her Majesty's Name and in

obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Wednesday, the twenty-fourth day of this instant November, to be then here holden; and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to the twenty-fourth day of this instant November.

End of the Second Session (opened on 19th November 1975) of the Forty-seventh Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in the Twenty-fifth Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.